@mlouielu, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @kbkaiser, @terryjreedy and @ned-deily to be potential reviewers.

I'm wondering about the naming of the function "user_interrupt".

The other "user_*" functions ("user_line", "user_exception", etc.) are Bdb callbacks that allow the debugger to update itself based on the current state of the running program. In this case, we're actually trying to control the running program, and this routine is called by our own code, not Bdb.

The Bdb "set_" functions do control the running program, so we could consider "set_interrupt". The only potential downside is that it wouldn't be clear that this isn't a Bdb function. Perhaps something along the lines of "force_interrupt"?

I'm not normally super-pendantic about names, but with all the difference places where code is running in the debugger, it's hard enough to follow as it is, so anything that can be done in IDLE to avoid confusion is a good thing.

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.

As with #15027, the merge conflict in run.py is because part of Executive.__init__ code was made conditional on not testing by #24302. I put the line added here, self.idb = None outside the condiition block as it should not interfere with other tests.

This PR also needs new tests.

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.