From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: zsh-workers-request@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by coral.primenet.com.au (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA05725 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:06:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA10762; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:58:27 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:58:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <961113103209.ZM29344@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:32:08 -0800 In-Reply-To: Zefram "Re: signal weirdness" (Nov 13, 6:03pm) References: <26092.199611131803@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Zefram Subject: Re: signal weirdness Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"2niPo3.0.4e2.oPZYo"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2401 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Nov 13, 6:03pm, Zefram wrote: } Subject: Re: signal weirdness } } I don't see the problem with just ignoring the situation, in the case } of key-generated interrupts. If the user wants to kill a program *and* } have the shell process a SIGINT handler, he can press ^C twice. HUP is } the only one that we really need to handle specially. Csh, at least, invokes its onintr handlers when any process spawned from a csh script gets a keyboard interrupt. /bin/sh (pre-POSIX, at least) invokes its INT traps on a single interrupt, AFAIK. Sometimes the shell is in a loop spawning jobs too fast for pressing ctrl-C twice to have the desired effect. What good is an INT handler if zsh never gets the signal? } What does POSIX say about all of this? I'd be interested, too. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern