From 657e833239de855e2153380bab1066586d023ae6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dan Nicolaescu Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:24:43 +0000 Subject: (terminal-init-xterm): Experiment with a longer timeout. --- lisp/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ lisp/term/xterm.el | 11 ++++++++--- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/ChangeLog b/lisp/ChangeLog index 406d29a2cc..3364e892a4 100644 --- a/lisp/ChangeLog +++ b/lisp/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2007-10-23 Dan Nicolaescu + + * term/xterm.el (terminal-init-xterm): Experiment with a longer + timeout. + 2007-10-23 Katsumi Yamaoka * emacs-lisp/advice.el (ad-make-advised-docstring): diff --git a/lisp/term/xterm.el b/lisp/term/xterm.el index a60aa90255..fbc4c861bf 100644 --- a/lisp/term/xterm.el +++ b/lisp/term/xterm.el @@ -480,9 +480,14 @@ (send-string-to-terminal "\e[>0c") ;; The reply should be of the form: \e [ > NUMBER1 ; NUMBER2 ; NUMBER3 c - (when (equal (read-event nil nil 0.1) ?\e) - (when (equal (read-event nil nil 0.1) ?\[) - (while (not (equal (setq chr (read-event nil nil 0.1)) ?c)) + ;; If the timeout is completely removed for read-event, this + ;; might hang for terminals that pretend to be xterm, but don't + ;; respond to this escape sequence. RMS' opinion was to remove + ;; it completely. That might be right, but let's first try to + ;; see if by using a longer timeout we get rid of most issues. + (when (equal (read-event nil nil 2) ?\e) + (when (equal (read-event nil nil 2) ?\[) + (while (not (equal (setq chr (read-event nil nil 2)) ?c)) (setq str (concat str (string chr)))) (when (string-match ">0;\\([0-9]+\\);0" str) ;; NUMBER2 is the xterm version number, look for something -- cgit v1.2.3