Re: subtle `echo' bug

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 15,  4:49pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} Seems OK so far; are the other signals we should be treating similarly?

Since this only affects interactive shells, we could consider breaking
the loop only on SIGINT and SIGQUIT (that is, on keyboard-generated
signals).  As is the loop ends on e.g. SIGSEGV, or any other process-
killing signal that hits a child.

I'm not sure what to say about SIGHUP, though.
 
} Would it be safer to use WTERMSIG(val) instead of (val - 128)?

Oh, yes, it would.  I've been doing this too long, I never think of
those newfangled macros. :-}