I have something like:
public interface FooInterface {
public static final int FOO = 1;
}
public class FooClass implements FooInterface {
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println(I'm doing something with + FOO);
}
}
If I put the cursor on the System.out.println, on
Paul Kinnucan wrote:
No this is a problem with Comint on some combinations of Emacs and the
host operating system. I believe it may have something to do with how
comint handles standard error input from an external process, e.g.,
jdb.
Yes, I think that's it too. I experience it and posted
Would the problem be solved if comint returned code 1, instead of 129?
In other words, is the problem that comint returns an inappropriate
error code, or that comint returns *any* error code at all (i.e. it
shouldn't get an error from the subprocess in the first place)?
Raul
On Fri, 2004-10-08
I run test like this:
java -Xdebug -Xrunjdwp:transport=dt_socket,server=y,address=8000 test
From JDEbug/Processes/Attach Process/On Local Host, I see this:
*** Debugger Output for Process 8000(1) ***
Attached to process on port 8000 of local host.
Attached VM (socket) Java Debug
Raul Acevedo wrote:
Would the problem be solved if comint returned code 1, instead of 129?
In other words, is the problem that comint returns an inappropriate
error code, or that comint returns *any* error code at all (i.e. it
shouldn't get an error from the subprocess in the first place)?
Len Trigg writes:
Raul Acevedo wrote:
Would the problem be solved if comint returned code 1, instead of 129?
In other words, is the problem that comint returns an inappropriate
error code, or that comint returns *any* error code at all (i.e. it
shouldn't get an error from the
