On 15-03-27, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Isaac Schwabacher wrote: > > > >> This is confusing at best > > > > Yes, at the very least the documentation should be improved. I installed > > the attached patch to try to do that. > > > >> Is it really better for a read on stdin to fail with EBADF rather than > >> simply returning EOF > > > > It depends on whether we want GNU nohup to be a universal donor or a > > universal acceptor. Right now it's more the former (if a program works with > > GNU nohup it should be portable to other nohup platforms); a nohup that > > makes stdin read from /dev/null would be more "accepting" of badly-written > > code developed elsewhere. I suppose I could be talked into that, > > particularly given Matlab's misbehavior here. Jim? > > My rationale (didn't check and assume it was I) was that it is > better to fail in a way more likely to alert the incautious user > that they have misused the tool, rather than to silently > accept questionable usage. > > Considering it has been this way for 10 years, and has > exposed real bugs in client code, I am inclined to prefer > the existing behavior.
Fair enough. > Don't shoot the messenger? You mean the MATLAB rep who informed me that I could work around the land mine by not stepping on it? :P
