From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Sep 26 08:15:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA09801
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (word.smith.net.au [202.0.75.3])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA09794
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.smith.net.au [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA01871;
	Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:41:58 +0930 (CST)
Message-Id: <199709261511.AAA01871@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Jon Hamilton <hamilton@pobox.com>
cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Timeout for sh(1) 'read' ?? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:58:02 EST."
             <199709261259.FAA03276@hub.freebsd.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:41:56 +0930
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> } > 
> } >  - I want to prompt for input using 'read', and have the read return in
> } >    some fashion after a timeout.
> } > 
> } > I'd like to do this just using sh, and I'm not too fussed about how 
> } > hairy it is.  Any ideas?
> } > 
> } > (If sh has to be modified to achieve this, would it be a useful thing 
> } > to bring back?)
...
> You can do this kind of thing with background processes and trap, but
> it's not what you'd call pretty, and even that isn't as straightforward
> as it might sound.

In other words, it would be a good thing for read to have a timeout 
option : correct?  Any objections?

mike