From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7141 invoked from network); 21 Jun 1999 15:56:21 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 21 Jun 1999 15:56:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 7225 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 1999 15:56:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6768 Received: (qmail 7217 invoked from network); 21 Jun 1999 15:56:05 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990621155542.ZM23581@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:55:42 +0000 In-Reply-To: <000201bebbb4$e9f3a9c0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> Comments: In reply to "Andrej Borsenkow" "RE: pws-22: killing the ZSH loops problem" (Jun 21, 11:08am) References: <000201bebbb4$e9f3a9c0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Subject: Re: pws-22: killing the ZSH loops problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 21, 11:08am, Andrej Borsenkow wrote: } Subject: RE: pws-22: killing the ZSH loops problem } } > } We need it only if MONITOR is set } > } > Not true! MONITOR only affects handling of ^Z, not of ^C. We need to be } > able to properly interrupt such loops in any shell. } } Ahem ... yes. What about "only in interactive shells?" What about "kill -INT"? What about a shell script that isn't interactive but that's running in the foreground? } If don't miss something again: we have to fork only for the loop as whole. That's right, but the reason we don't do this now is so that parameter assignments inside the loop are visible after the loop terminates. That doesn't work in most other shells. } ... so, it seems, execution time penalty is acceptable. After all, you } don't use loops on every prompt. The execution time isn't as much at issue as is the process table space. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com