| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:07:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:04 +0200 Sven Köhler <skoehler@×××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | After the all, the whole mess can IMHO only be cleared up, if there's |
| 4 |
> | something like a universal terminal-type, and the application could |
| 5 |
> | ask the terminal for it's feature-set. So i'm not aware if this is |
| 6 |
> | possible, but this seems to be the only _really_ reliable extensible |
| 7 |
> | way to do this. I don't see the point in define lots of all new |
| 8 |
> | terminal-types. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> There is none. Even if such a thing existed, it wouldn't solve the |
| 11 |
> "does this terminal have any weird bugs" issue. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think the key thing here is that the application should be able to ask the |
| 14 |
terminal for its feature set. That'd also solve the cases where a terminal |
| 15 |
changes right beneath a running application. That happens during attaching a |
| 16 |
screen session. Would it be possible/hard for a terminal to have a |
| 17 |
'gimme_your_terminfo' capability? Or, alternatively, the capability could be |
| 18 |
'gimme_your_TERM' and this would solve problems with buggy terminals as well. |
| 19 |
For me the biggest obstacle with terminals is that TERM environment variable |
| 20 |
can't change during an application runtime, while the terminal can change and, |
| 21 |
when using screen, often does. |
| 22 |
Well, I don't know much about this and you seem to be very knowledgeable, so I |
| 23 |
ask :). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ivan |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives