From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1629 invoked from network); 21 Jun 1999 11:29:40 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 21 Jun 1999 11:29:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 12589 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 1999 11:29:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6756 Received: (qmail 12582 invoked from network); 21 Jun 1999 11:29:23 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:29:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199906211129.NAA22754@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:44:43 +0000 Subject: Re: pws-22: killing the ZSH loops problem Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:55am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } Subject: Re: pws-22: killing the ZSH loops problem > } > } Unless I'm missing something obvious, we can't simply execute > } processes in a loop (or other shell construct) in the same pgrp as the > } shell. Sure, this would give us the SIGINT, but it would also give us > } the SIGSTOP -- suspending the shell. > > Strictly speaking, it would give us SIGTSTP -- ^Z does not generate STOP. > Since TSTP is catchable (unlike STOP), the parent shell simply has to have > a TSTP handler or ignore TSTP -- which zsh already does. Oh, yes. Oops. I had tried implementing that and got a SIGSTOP -- without further thinking I wrote the above. Seems like the stuff I had hacked together caused update_job() to send a SIGSTOP to the parent shell. Hm. So there might be a way... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de