[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-readline] Refresh readline notion of terminal size

From: Carlos Pita
Subject: Re: [Bug-readline] Refresh readline notion of terminal size
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:20:36 -0300

Just to let you know. Regarding python:

- ipython 5 is no longer a problem since it has moved to prompt toolkit[1].
- python 3.5.2 fixes the resizing issue (search for #23735):


[1] This also applies to many repls moving to jupyter, since jupyter
console is also using pt.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:41 PM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:24:57PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 7/19/16 6:42 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>> > Thanks Chet. I know Python and R have a similar model. I think the
>> > question is not whether it is OK for Readline to take over the
>> > application's signal handling, but whether it was OK for Readline to
>> > catch signals and then forward them to the application - as it was
>> > doing before 6.3.
>> Sigh.  This is a different question.  Readline still does this, as it
>> always has.
> It seems we're rehashing old conversations. I think the change that
> you made in 6.3, which I am referring to, was to make Readline no
> longer catch signals outside of rl_callback_read_char(), thus
> requiring application programmers to re-implement Readline's signal
> handlers. I understand that forwarding is still done for signals
> received within this function.
>> It was not OK to do cleanup and other processing in a signal
>> handler, so Readline does this now from a function that is not
>> called in a signal handling context.
> Yes, there is RL_CHECK_SIGNALS which is not exposed to the application.
> That's why I proposed exposing a function which does the same thing in
> my original message about this:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2016-04/msg00066.html
> This would require all callback interface consumers to make a
> pre-approved 1-line change to their code, not ideal but better than 10
> lines IMHO.
> Frederick

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]