Re: GUD icons

[Kim F. Storm]

Nick Roberts <address@hidden> writes:

> It doesn't kill it on my computer. comint-kill-subjob and comint-quit-subjob
> do that.  I think SIGINT, which is what comint-interrupt-subjob sends, is
> usual.  

Sorry, I checked in my change to call -stop- rather than -interrupt- without
waiting for you response.  I shouldn't have done that.  I hope you can DTRT.

However, I had only tried this with debugging emacs, so indeed C-c C-c kills
emacs -- so I'm accustomed to ALWAYS use C-c C-z (stop), as this is safer.

>         SIGTSTP (comint-stop-subjob) needs two continue commands to restart
> whereas SIGINT only needs one:

Yes, that is annoying (but I'm so used to it, that I hardly think
about it anymore).

> This is because SIGTSTP gets passed to the program but SIGINT doesn't:

I see.

> The only problem with using SIGINT is that it doesn't work when debugging
> Emacs.  

Why not?

>         I could make this a special case, as with gud-pp, I guess.

Wouldn't it be better to make emacs work with SIGINT instead?

But if SIGINT can kill emacs, it can kill other apps too (I suppose);
so for that reason SIGTSTP is safer -- but if emacs is really the only
app where this is relevant, maybe we could special-case it.

[and then Go could automatically send two c's to continue ... if stopped
by SIGTSTP].

> Yes, of course!  I've done that.

Nice!

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk