[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior - ^Z in editor
From: |
Klaus Weide |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior - ^Z in editor |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Jul 1999 00:28:08 -0500 (CDT) |
> > The easiest way to prevent Bad Things from happening here is to
> > disable the SIGTSTP handler in this situation (use SIG_DFL).
> >
> > Should it be (n)curses' job to do this (probably always while in
> > 'shell' mode)?
>
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, T.E.Dickey wrote:
> If Lynx establishes its own SIGTSTP handler before initscr, then
> ncurses won't (isn't supposed to). It's simpler to just have one....
>
> > Should lynx do this?
> > (It could be put into LYSystem(). Or into stop_curses/start_curses.
I didn't mean that lynx should implement its own handler (as done with
slang), and it shouldn't change anything permanently.
More like:
if (some conditions) {
... /* save current SIGTSTP state, and set to SIG_DFL */
}
code = system(...);
if (same conditions) {
... /* restore SIGTSTP state to what it was */
}
I think this should go into LYSystem(). Conditions should include
(!dump_output_immediately && !LYCursesON), to make the change only
for "interactive" child processes for which lynx has already done a
stop_curses().
We should use sigaction() instead of signal() here when available.
I hope this would remove the problem. The "fix" might belong in ncurses,
but fixing that would not help users of older ncurses and other curses
libs.
Any objections?
Klaus
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, T.E.Dickey, 1999/07/10
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, Larry W. Virden, 1999/07/10
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, Larry W. Virden, 1999/07/10
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, Larry W. Virden, 1999/07/10
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, Larry W. Virden, 1999/07/10
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, Larry W. Virden, 1999/07/10
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, T.E.Dickey, 1999/07/10
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior - ^Z in editor,
Klaus Weide <=
- Re: lynx-dev peculiar behavior, T.E.Dickey, 1999/07/10