Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!apple!oliveb!tymix!antares!jms
From: jms@antares.UUCP (Joe Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: control-c doesn't work.
Summary: use "NewCli from ..."
Message-ID: <434@antares.UUCP>
Date: 3 Apr 89 05:30:17 GMT
References: <12136@louie.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: jms@antares.UUCP (Joe Smith)
Organization: Tymnet QSATS, San Jose CA
Lines: 30

In article <12136@louie.udel.EDU> C506634@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Eric Edwards) writes:
>I have discovered, much to my dismay, that xicon and iconx will not pass
>control-c to the process.  Initially this was discoved when I tried to start a
>demo with an iconx script.  If the demo was run from the cli a control-c would
>abort the demo.  However, if it was  launched from an iconx or xicon script the
> control-c would be ignored.  I have also tried this with dir.  Again,
>control-c was ignored.

This posting from December has the answer:
Summary: Use NEWCLI from ...
Keywords: ^C needs a CLI
Message-ID: <286@antares.UUCP>
Date: 3 Dec 88 11:48:33 GMT
References: <9029@gryphon.COM> <1119@esunix.UUCP>

>In article <1119@esunix.UUCP> blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes:
>On the other hand, if I have the following IconX script, everything is
>fine.
>        newcli from walker.exec
>Walker.exec is the same script that IconX was executing directly before.

You have to run NEWCLI in the XICON script to create a window that WILL
respond to Control-C.  XICON creates a process instead of a CLI-process;
the major difference is that CLI-processes respond to Control-C and the
others don't.
-- 
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | jms@antares.Tymnet.COM or jms@opus.Tymnet.COM
McDonnell Douglas FSCO  | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!antares!jms
PO Box 49019, MS-D21    | PDP-10:JMS@F74.Tymnet.COM  CA license plate:"POPJ P,"
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"