Re: master ed84f24a21: Make `signal-process' allow completing over signal names

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> I admit that I don't understand the purpose and the intended uses of
> this new primitive.  Is it there only for signal-process or more
> generally for read-signal-name or even more generally for providing
> the exhaustive list of names of all the signals known to the OS?

It's for read-signal-name.

> If it's only for signal-process, then is it really useful to produce a
> completion table of 63 or 255 signal names, quite a few of which
> cannot be usefully delivered to another process?  Perhaps it would be
> better to have a much shorter (system-dependent) list of signals that
> can be delivered to processes on each system?  IOW, if this is
> supposed to be a convenience feature, then why not provide the user
> with a convenient short list of signals that he/she would reasonably
> consider delivering, and leave the rest to numbers?

I don't know how to determine which ones are reasonable to consider
delivering, so punting to gnulib seems like a more long term solution.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no