roy@sts.sts.COM (11/22/89)
I'm running Bash 1.04, compiled with gcc v1.30 on a Sun3/60 with SunOS 4.0. I've just noticed that, if you put some jobs in the background and they've completed, it takes an execution of a non-builtin command (i.e. not the 'jobs' command) to make the shell realize that the jobs are actually complete. I don't see any reason why a builtin command shouldn't do this. The C shell will even notify you of job completion after you've typed a carriage return. Also, the C shell has a variable called 'notify', which when set, will asynchronously notify you that your background job is finished. How about if Bash had this too? Roy Bixler roy@sts.COM -or- ames!claris!sts!roy
trost@reed.bitnet (Bill Trost) (11/23/89)
Roy Bixler <roy@sts.com> writes:
"... I don't see any reason why a builtin command
shouldn't do this. The C shell will even notify you of job completion
after you've typed a carriage return.
"Also, the C shell has a variable called 'notify', which when set, will
asynchronously notify you that your background job is finished. How
about if Bash had this too?"
Seconded. Waiting for jobs to complete has been rather bizarre in
bash, especially since the most natural way to see if a job is done is
by typing "jobs", and the command doesn't give correct information.
It would seem that the best place to see if jobs have been completed
would be right before the potential execution of the PROMPT_COMMAND.
--
--bfox@AUREL.CNS.CALTECH.EDU (Brian Fox) (11/24/89)
Date: 23 Nov 89 00:52:39 GMT
From: ctrsol!emory!ogccse!reed!trost@gem.mps.ohio-state.edu (Bill Trost)
References: <278200004@sts>
Sender: bug-bash-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
Roy Bixler <roy@sts.com> writes:
"... I don't see any reason why a builtin command
shouldn't do this. The C shell will even notify you of job completion
after you've typed a carriage return.
"Also, the C shell has a variable called 'notify', which when set, will
asynchronously notify you that your background job is finished. How
about if Bash had this too?"
Seconded. Waiting for jobs to complete has been rather bizarre in
bash, especially since the most natural way to see if a job is done is
by typing "jobs", and the command doesn't give correct information.
It would seem that the best place to see if jobs have been completed
would be right before the potential execution of the PROMPT_COMMAND.
--
--
notify=
Brianroy@sts.sts.COM (11/28/89)
I did have the 'notify' variable of Bash set exactly as specified (notify=). It still only notify'ed me of job comletion on execution of an external command. Roy roy@sts.COM
trost@reed.bitnet (Bill Trost) (11/28/89)
Oops, guess I should have peeked around the source a bit (or just try it). "notify" does work, sort of. However, it still doesn't match csh behavior (which I consider to be correct _in this case_ :-) ). When notify is set under csh, job status change will be scribbled at you even at the prompt. Plus, the same misbehavior with builtins sticks around. Well anyhow, enough noise about this one. -- --
bfox@AUREL.CNS.CALTECH.EDU (Brian Fox) (11/28/89)
I did have the 'notify' variable of Bash set exactly as specified
(notify=). It still only notify'ed me of job comletion on execution
of an external command.
Roy
roy@sts.COM
Are you saying that you have different results than:
bfox@playdoh$ sleep 2 &
[1] 3854
bfox@playdoh$ [1]+ Done sleep 20
Brian