From:	"Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <k3040e4 AT wildsau DOT idv-edu DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at>
Message-Id:	<199801261913.UAA27415@wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at>
Subject:	Re: Request for comments: SIGQUIT in DJGPP v2.02
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:13:16 +0100 (MET)
Cc:	k3040e4 AT wildsau DOT idv-edu DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at, dj AT delorie DOT com,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980125112248.6225A-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jan 25, 98 11:23:24 am
Return-Read-To:	k3040e4 AT wildsau DOT idv DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at
MIME-Version:	1.0

> > While I appreciate your efforts and understand your motivation
> > behind this patch, I think that is not matured for inclusion
> > into libc
>
> We clearly disagree on this (if I thought like you, I would never sit
> down to write that code).  But since you haven't provided any
> reasoning behind your opinion, I cannot respond to it.  So we are left
> with no possibility to arrive at some agreement as to what should be
> changed in the code I submitted to have everybody, including you,
> happy.

Basically we have three possibilities:

A) leave things as they are (programs can always install a keyboard handler)
B) put your SIGQUIT patches into libc (which I consider non-mature)
C) do the Right Thing and extend termios

To repeat: my vote clearly goes for A), I dislike B), but I would be
very happy to see C).

> > I don't know if someone has the motivation and skill to actually
> > dig into this, but please no more rash libc extensions
> 
> IMHO, this attitide means stagnation.  There are two ways of making
> DJGPP move in the direction of your liking: either write the code
> yourself, or convince others to change their code according to what
> you think is right.

That's what I'm actually trying to ;-)

> So if you have specific suggestions for changes
> in the code I submitted, please tell what they are.  Asking for ``no
> more rash libc extensions'' won't help: I'm working on this for far
> too long to make it qualify as ``rash''.

Please excuse me, but the current *design* is definitly "rash".

> > if you need it badly now then put it into emacs.
> 
> The main motivation for SIGQUIT was not Emacs, since it defines the
> same handler for both SIGINT and SIGQUIT.

I have been asking to find out your motivation for the patch. The
first time you responded it was emacs and some interpreter, now you
respond it's not emacs.

So I'm trying once more:
- which programs need it ?
- what exactly are they needing it for ?
- why do you it is neccessary to do B) instead of A) ?

-- 
-----   Markus Oberhumer <markus DOT oberhumer AT jk DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at>   -----
-----        http://www.wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at/mfx/         -----
-----     5E CB 5C 85 DE AF 9E BF  E9 DA 7E 6A 39 F8 CC 67      -----

                         3 WARPS TO URANUS

- Raw text -