[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nano-devel] RFC: should nano respond to a SIGCONT?

From: David Ramsey
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel] RFC: should nano respond to a SIGCONT?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:28:40 -0500

Benno Schulenberg:
> 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.

nano's not being active in terms of input is a problem, but removing the
SIGCONT handler causes worse problems, at least here on Slackware 14.2
with nano git (4781d4d) and that handler removed: if you suspend nano,
resize the window you suspended nano in, and then send the nano process
SIGCONT from another window, nano will not account for the changed
window size as it did with the SIGCONT handler in place.  (Maximizing
the window will have the following effects: pressing Ctrl-L will make
nano only account for the horizontal change, and toggling hohelp mode
via Meta-X will make nano only account for the vertical change.)

Since the SIGCONT handler also keeps mouse support as it was before nano
was suspended, if you were to toggle mouse support via escape sequence
in the window you suspended nano in, this would cause similar breakage.

Finally, with the SIGCONT handler removed, trying to send SIGCONT to
nano doesn't bring nano back up at all, aside from displaying some of
the bottom window and then making the shell print that nano is still

Given this, the input problem should be fixed (I have no idea how,
though), but the SIGCONT handler, or at least its equivalent
functionality, shouldn't be removed.

reply via email to

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