Re: subtle `echo' bug

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:
> 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.

One might hope any well-behaved SIGHUP would go to the parent shell, too.
One might also wonder whether SIGTERM should behave like SIGINT.
However, the idea that only signals that come from the keyboard behave
differently in interactive and non-interactive shells does sound quite
attractive.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>                  Software Engineer
CSR PLC, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road
Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

**********************************************************************