Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2025 16:59:02 +0100 From: Philipp Ost <pj@smo.de> To: cyric@mm.st, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a really big question : why not "^C" for a CTRL-C with default /bin/sh ? Message-ID: <4c330c49-1c45-46cf-9d1e-afce745e8f88@smo.de> In-Reply-To: <9ea41e44-7160-40eb-9d80-b8bf13a7f396@mm.st> References: <f5929936-1184-46e6-929b-72fe460719aa@blastwave.org> <864EE1FC-1533-47D4-A395-C24F25269EE0@freebsd.org> <342c6a91-a8a1-483d-861e-8e8c6d79998f@blastwave.org> <9ea41e44-7160-40eb-9d80-b8bf13a7f396@mm.st>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 11/2/25 02:22, cyric@mm.st wrote: > Dennis Clarke wrote: >> On 11/1/25 20:30, Michael Gmelin wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 2. Nov 2025, at 00:34, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> This is about as annoying as a small sharp stone stuck in a shoe : >>>> >> ... >>> Wasn‘t this always the default behavior in /bin/sh? >>> >> >> If it was and if it is then it is broken and always has been. >> >> No UNIX shell *ever* behaves this way in at least the last four decades. > > zsh does, ksh93 (illumos) does. ksh93 from ports (shells/ksh93) does not. > >> Perhaps three decades. As far back as I can recall and that includes >> using paper terminals. It may be the libedit library there has a borked >> way of dealing with a SIGINT. >help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4c330c49-1c45-46cf-9d1e-afce745e8f88>