undefined | Better HN

0 pointsklez3y ago0 comments

> or they capture ^c and interpret it to behave like the classic shells do because that’s the behaviour people expect from shells.

Which is kinda the point.

> So literally every ‘if’, ‘echo’ and ‘for’ (etc) has its own process ID in Linux/UNIX. Thus you can ‘kill’ an ‘echo’.

Do they? Because if I try like this `while :; do echo; done` and in another terminal I do `ps -x --forest` I can see the original bash running but it doesn't have any child process.

Besides, is it relevant to the discussion at hand?

0 comments

hnlmorg3y ago

> Which is kinda the point.

I thought I’d get picked up on that part. My point was that shells are just a UI for invoking other applications (like a desktop shell but CLI). That’s the precedence and anything that’s shell-like but doesn’t follow POSIX is still inclined to emulate the same behaviour of killing applications because that’s the behaviour that people expect after decades of POSIX.

So it really is more about killing applications than killing tasks.

> Do they?

That was the original design (there’s even standalone executables for those commands included in coreutils for historic reasons). However Bash might have since optimised out a few forks.

The shell I’ve written certainly doesn’t fork() every built in either. However that doesn’t change how ^c’s behaviour was intended.

> Besides, is it relevant to the discussion at hand?

I’m talking about the behaviour for ^c and how it is handed in the shell, as a direct response to your comment about it. So yes. It’s exactly relevant to the discussion.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse