From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Sep 26 14:11:41 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27980
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usr08.primenet.com (tlambert@usr08.primenet.com [206.165.6.208])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA27972
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
	by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA13659;
	Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:11:14 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199709262111.OAA13659@usr08.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Timeout for sh(1) 'read' ??
To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:11:13 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: hamilton@pobox.com, tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199709261511.AAA01871@word.smith.net.au> from "Mike Smith" at Sep 27, 97 00:41:56 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 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?

How about:

timeout 30 -inactivity `tty` read x

instead?

Then it could be used on any command.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.