On 4/4/24 7:23 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
> I'm somewhat uneasy about having coprocs inaccessible to each other.
> I can foresee reasonable cases where I'd want a coproc to utilize one or 
> more other coprocs.

That's not the intended purpose, so I don't think not fixing a bug to
accommodate some future hypothetical use case is a good idea. That's
why there's a warning message when you try to use more than one coproc --
the shell doesn't keep track of more than one.

If you want two processes to communicate (really three), you might want
to build with the multiple coproc support and use the shell as the
arbiter.

-- 
``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/