Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!ur-cvsvax!jea
From: jea@ur-cvsvax.UUCP (Joanne Albano)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Initial Opinion of Amiga Now: ^C
Message-ID: <408@ur-cvsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 10:15:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ur-cvsva.408
Posted: Tue Nov 18 10:15:18 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Nov-86 21:19:56 EST
References: <939@blia.BLI.COM> <995@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Organization: Center for Visual Science, Univ. of Rochester
Lines: 21
Summary: Please tell us more...

In article <995@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
writes to Jon Forrest  ucbvax!mtxinu!blia!forrest:
> I've never noticed this, but AmigaDOS does allow ^C trapping within I/O
> routines.  Actually, I believe that a ^C is noticed immediately by the
> I/O management Process, and during a program's I/O its occurance is polled.
> It depends alot on how the program is written; it can be dangerous to
> break out of a program at certain points, so its likely that the ^C checking
> is turned off in these cases.
> Dave Haynie	{caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh


I think some of us are looking for "^C","break" or a "kill"
to be used to interrupt any ongoing process.
Could you tell us where/how you noticed this? Is there any
documentation on this? I guess one wouldnt want to write just half
a file, but a break would want to have some kind of priority
associated with it and a cleanup routine (ie close up files etc.
free memory). I tired of rebooting every time one of my programs
goes zombie.

Joanne Albano {rochester!ur-cvsvax!jea}