Date:Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:48:09 +0100
From:Edgar =?iso-8859-1?B?RnXf?=
Message-ID:
| I guess "enters stopped state" includes the case where the process
| already was in the stopped state when the wait command was issued?
Yes, sequencing doesn't matter (though it
> Then add an option to wait [...] to indicate that wait should complete
> if the [...] process enters stopped state
I guess "enters stopped state" includes the case where the process already was
in the stopped state when the wait command was issued?
> My inclination is to go that way, rather th
It turns out that sh(1) has a bug (maybe one I created when I
reconstructed the wait builtin command, or perhaps it was
there before, and I just rearranged it, it isn't worth the
effort to trace the history) when the wait builtin command is
applied to a job that stops.
It must be a bug, as the res
