Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:19:28 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: sh bug? Message-ID: <20050128161928.GA70503@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20050128153328.GA96969@stack.nl> References: <41F9F2DC.7000907@elischer.org> <20050128094116.B56848@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <41FA008D.7030403@elischer.org> <20050128153328.GA96969@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Jan 28), Jilles Tjoelker said: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 01:06:21AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Harti Brandt wrote: > > >On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >JE>however echo $$ > > >JE>and > > >JE> ( echo $$ ) > > >JE>produce the same result. > > >I think that the $$ is expanded in the old shell in any case. > > Although it seems similar, I prefer to say the value of $$ does not > change when forking a subshell. man sh and POSIX also state that. Thus, > all $ expandos work the same way. > > > hence my test of > > ps -l vs (ps -l) > > > unfortunatly the shell short circuits that too if it's too simple. > > But unfortunately, it doesn't short circuit when you something like sh > -c xterm, it keeps a useless shell waiting. Try "sh -c exec xterm". The sh is not useless, since it must hang around to print the signal name if the xterm gets killed. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050128161928.GA70503>