Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #15397 > unrolled thread

Re: [Patch] (tiny problem) bad short_doc for % command

Back to article view | Back to gnu.bash.bug

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Patch] (tiny problem) bad short_doc for % command Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2019-09-21 17:03 -0400

#15397 — Re: [Patch] (tiny problem) bad short_doc for % command

On 9/21/19 1:37 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Sat, 21 Sep 2019 17:18:47 +0200
>     From:        Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>     Message-ID:  <875zllu17s.fsf@igel.home>
> 
>   | A job spec already starts with %.
> 
> That's not what was meant.

It's the right answer, though.

> 
> In, for example:
> 
> 	jinx$ help -s wait
> 	wait: wait [-fn] [id ...]
> 
> the command name appears both before and after the ':', as if to
> say "The usage for the wait command is "wait" optional 'f' and 'n' flags,
> and some number of optional "id" args.

The job spec, introduced by the `%', *is* the command. It's explained in
the man page. Even a `%' by itself, without any job name or number, is a
job spec. So `%' is not a command name per se -- the command that gets
invoked is either `fg' or `bg'.

Chet
-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | gnu.bash.bug

csiph-web