In article <vff8qc$31tk9$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
...

For multiple co-processes you may be right. (I certainly differ
given how Bash implemented it, with all the question that arise.)
And I already said: I don't think it makes much sense to discuss
subjective valuations.

Our opinions are all we have. I can't see how that can be "off topic".

It was you who first brought up your personal opinion on the subject
(comparing the ksh implementation of coprocs with the bash implementation).
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with that; we are here to exchange opinions.

I really do think that there's no significant difference in verbosity
between the two implementations (certainly in the simple case). The ksh
way of handling multiples looks kludgey to me (you may think otherwise, of course). It certainly looks to me that the bash way was designed (no doubt benefiting from ksh having paved the way), whereas the ksh way "just grew".

And, finally, yes, it is odd that the bash way was designed to support multi-coproc yet multi-coproc doesn't work "out of the box" (I've described elsethread what you have to do to get it to work). Maybe this situation
has changed in the years since I last researched it.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Aspergers

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)