Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:11:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: hamilton@pobox.com, tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Timeout for sh(1) 'read' ?? Message-ID: <199709262111.OAA13659@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199709261511.AAA01871@word.smith.net.au> from "Mike Smith" at Sep 27, 97 00:41:56 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709262111.OAA13659>