From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3553 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1999 11:48:49 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 8 Jul 1999 11:48:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 29885 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 1999 11:48:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7035 Received: (qmail 29878 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1999 11:48:39 -0000 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:48:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199907081148.NAA12179@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Peter Stephenson's message of Wed, 07 Jul 1999 12:03:11 +0200 Subject: Re: PATCH: pws-25: _read_comp, again Peter Stephenson wrote: > and I had to trap SIGINT to return from the function because for > some reason `read -k' wasn't returning the right status, just a 0 (which > you can't tell from C-SPC): strange, since it seems to work perfectly well > in ordinary widgets. I've left the commented-out debugging code in > deliberately. Sigh. For me it correctly returns `1' as the return status. The problem is that the signal handler for SIGINT sets `breaks=loops' and since the second read is in a loop the then-clause will never be executed (because of the test of the while-loop in `execlist()'). Hm. What are we to do here -- should we reset some of the things changed by the signal handler in bin_read()? Do we always want that? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de