On 4/8/24 11:44 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:

> The fact that the current implementation allows the coproc fds to get
> into process substitutions is a little weird to me. A process
> substitution, in combination with exec, is kind of the one other way
> to communicate with background processes through fds without using
> FIFOs. I still have to close the coproc fds there myself, right now.

So are you advocating for the shell to close coproc file descriptors
when forking children for command substitutions, process substitutions,
and subshells, in addition to additional coprocs? Right now, it closes
coproc file descriptors when forking subshells.

> 
> Consider the following situation: I've got different kinds of
> background processes going on, and I've got fds exec'd from process
> substitutions, fds from coprocs,

If you have more than one coproc, you have to manage all this yourself
already.

-- 
``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/