Re: process substitution bug with set -e?

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:47:49 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So we've pretty much decided on a case-by-case basis what to document and
> what not to, but in this instance we've done enough legwork that it is
> probably worth writing it down.

What scope should be trying to cover here?  Simply document for process
substiution that if the code to which the substitution applies exits
early the shell won't wait for it to finish?  Or can we infer something
a bit wider?

pws