From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3784 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 07:02:11 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 07:02:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 12586 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2000 07:02:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13045 Received: (qmail 12573 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 07:02:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:01:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200010200701.JAA01039@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:24:31 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: ptyread eating CPU on Cygwin Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Oct 19, 1:49pm, Andrej Borsenkow wrote: > } > } So I suggest adding "read-with-timeout" possibilty, and making blocking read > } default. It is also useful to distinguish between EOF and timeout with > } different return code. > > This sounds right to me, too. Yes, to me, too. I hope to find the time at the weekend... I even think about removin non-blocking ptys altogether -- and add allow `zpty -w' with a timeout, too. Hm, the print builtin can't be given a timeout, but the -t option for it is still unused. Should we? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de