[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Nano-devel] RFC: should nano respond to a SIGCONT?
From: |
Benno Schulenberg |
Subject: |
[Nano-devel] RFC: should nano respond to a SIGCONT? |
Date: |
Wed, 24 May 2017 11:07:21 +0200 |
Hi all,
I've just tried suspending nano with ^Z and then waking
it up with a 'kill -SIGCONT <pid>' in another terminal.
When doing that, the contents of the current file are
displayed again, the cursor has returned to its former
place, but nano is not actually active: the shell still
has control of the terminal -- which becomes obvious
when you type <Up> a few times.
For testing, I've removed the setting of the SIGCONT
handler from nano, and ^Z plus fg still work fine.
So, does anyone know of any scenario where responding
to SIGCONT is useful?
Benno
--
http://www.fastmail.com - Access your email from home and the web
- [Nano-devel] RFC: should nano respond to a SIGCONT?,
Benno Schulenberg <=