Re: waiting for process substitutions

[alex xmb sw ratchev]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, 13:59 Zachary Santer <zsanter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 1:19 AM Oğuz <oguzismailuysal@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The benefit is they're separate from async jobs and don't get in your
> way. `wait' waiting for the last procsub is acceptable, `wait' waiting for
> a procsub that I forgot about and that won't be listed by `jobs' is not.
>
> I can not think of a time when I called 'wait' from the command line
> that wasn't just for testing something. Even using process
> substitutions on the command line is a relative rarity for me. If
> we're balancing behavior on the command line against behavior in a
> script, I think I'd give priority to scripting, at least here.
>
> Chet doesn't see much value in making process substitutions jobs,
> which I guess is fine. Can we agree that if they were made jobs,
> though, waiting for all of them would be acceptable? You could see
> them listed and handle them however you need.
>
> > Procsubs occupying one slot in the shell's internal list of job statuses
> is acceptable, them filling up that list and causing data loss/oom errors
> is not.
>
> Bash is evidently already tracking all the procsub pids in their own
> list, which now is always cleared when you call 'wait' without
> arguments.
>

where can i find this list

>