> You didn't answer my question about if `bg` returns a `fid` or not, and the documentation doesn't answer this either, nor did you say if those could be used in scripts... but it sounds like you're saying I have to parse `jobs` to get the `fid` of the command I just launched?

Everything in the documentation can be used in scripts.

`bg` doesn't write anything to stdout. The documentation does actually answer that if you look at the Usage section. In there it doesn't list <stdout>. eg compare `bg` it to other builtins and you'll see the ones that do write to stdout have `-> <stdout>` in the usage. Also none of the examples show `bg` writing anything to stdout.

You wouldn't want `bg` to write the PID to stdout anyway because then it would be harder to use in scripts, because you'd then need to remember to pipe stdout to null or risk contaminating your script output with lots of random numbers.

However the good news is you can still grab the PID for any forked process using <pid:variable_name>. eg

    » bg { sleep <pid:MOD.sleep_pid> 99999; echo "Sleep finished" }
    » kill $MOD.sleep_pid
    Sleep finished

($MOD is required because bg creates a new scope so any local variables created in there wouldn't be visible outside of `bg` block. MOD sets the scope to module level (also supported are GLOBAL and ENV).

It's also worth reiterating my previous comment that `bg` blocks are not separate UNIX processes but instead just different threads of the existing Murex process. In fact all Murex builtins are executed as threads instead of processes. This is done both for performance reasons (UNIX processes are slow, threads are fast...relatively speaking) and because you cannot easily share data between processes. So if `bg` was a process, it would be impossible to grab the PID of `sleep` and then share it with the main process without then having to write complex and slow IPCs between each UNIX process.

> That is, the body of the while loop is executed asynchronously with the pre-pipe command.

Are you just talking about each command in the pipe executing concurrently? That's the default in Murex. for example the following would only work if each command is working as a stream:

    tail -f example.log | grep something | sed -e s/foo/bar/ | tee -a output.log

The loop example could be achieved via `foreach` too. eg

    while { true } { echo hi; sleep 1 } | foreach line { echo "$line 2" }

The only time `foreach` wouldn't stream is with data-types that aren't streamable, such as JSON arrays. But that's documented in the JSON docs (https://murex.rocks/types/json.html#tips-when-writing-json-i...)

> TBH I just looked at the Murex docs again and I'm lost. Where's the reference? There's the "user guide" which contains the "user guide" (again) and also the "beginners guide" which to me are synonyms, "cheat sheet" and "read more" which both appear to be a bunch of snippets (again synonyms?), "operators and tokens" which are a reference of just a subset of the language, etc etc. I couldn't find anything on loops, which I'd expect to be a section somewhere. Clicking on "read / write a named pipe" in "builtin commands" somehow teleports me to an identically named page in a completely different "operators and tokens" section.

I'd generally refer people to the language tour to begin with https://dev.murex.rocks/tour.html It's pretty visible on the landing page but sounds like we could do more to make it visible when elsewhere on the site. I can take that feedback and work to make to the tour more prominent in the menus too (the pages you described do also link to the language tour, but clearly not in a visible enough way)

> Also are named pipes always global? Why can't they be local variables like other structures?

The only reason for that is because named pipes were one of the original constructs in Murex. They came before modules, scoping, and so forth. It would be possible to make them scopeable too but careful thought needs to be made about how to achieve that in a backwards-compatible yet intuitive way. And there have been other requests raised by users and the other contributors that have taken priority.

> It's great you have so much documentation, but I think it actually turned me away - it seems bloated with every bit of information split into multiple pieces and scattered around. Simplifying, consolidating, and reorganizing it from the top might help.

We'd welcome some recommendations here. Organising documentation is really hard. Even more so when the people who organise it aren't the same people who are expected to depend upon it.

> Thanks! Yeah, I wasn't talking about arrays here, but if e.g. `x` in my example contains space-separated "these three words", will `command` receive 3 arguments or 1. In bash, `command` would get 3 arguments, if you don't invoke the variable quote hack. I just tried this out though, and it gets 1 argument, so great!

I know you weren't talking about arrays, but the next question people ask is "how do I now expand one variable to be multiple parameters?"