thinking about this some more -- given that hitting ^C has exactly the same effect as this alarm going off, i can think of no reason to keep it around at all. i will simply remove the code unless i hear otherwise in the next couple of days.
paul i wrote: > it seems that vi contains a software watchdog of sorts. > > the intent is that if a vi command runs too long, a SIGALRM > will be generated, and the result will be much as if the user > hit ^C -- the operation will be aborted, and the editor will go > back to waiting for input. > > now, i don't quite know why this was implemented, but: > a) the current timeout is 3 seconds. this feels too short, > especially when you're searching for a string in a long > file. > b) currently, the alarm signal isn't even caught, so when the > timer expires, the editor just dies. there's a comment in > the code that implies this wasn't always the case, so i > assume it's a recent bug. > > what should i do? > > the obvious minimal change is simply to lengthen the timer, to > something more reasonable than 3 seconds. the signal should also > be caught correctly. > > but, should i simply delete this code? make it configurable? put > it inside a developer-only ifdef of some sort? > > paul =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
