Re: COLUMNS handling

2016-03-15 Thread Martin Natano
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:02:47PM -0600, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Martin Natano wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:57:36AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > >> > >> So, does it make sense to put COLUMNS and SIZE forward ? > >> I think

Re: COLUMNS handling

2016-03-14 Thread Marc Espie
So COLUMNS and LINES are not needed for automatic correct behavior in a modern environment... So we still have the questions: useful to restrain programs from stomping all over the terminal which is what POSIX mandates ? Should we jump that way ?

Re: COLUMNS handling

2016-03-14 Thread Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Martin Natano wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:57:36AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: >> >> So, does it make sense to put COLUMNS and SIZE forward ? >> I think this is the first important question to ask... >> >> (I remember having COLUMNS and

Re: COLUMNS handling

2016-03-14 Thread Martin Natano
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:57:36AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > > So, does it make sense to put COLUMNS and SIZE forward ? > I think this is the first important question to ask... > > (I remember having COLUMNS and LINES hardcoded in my old, old .profile > around SunOS4... we can probably assume

Re: COLUMNS handling

2016-03-14 Thread Marc Espie
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:38:48AM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > COLUMNS handling in our tree is inconsistent. > > POSIX specifies that if COLUMNS is a valid value (read: 1 or greater), > it takes precedence; otherwise, width is handled in an unspecified > manner. > >

COLUMNS handling

2016-03-14 Thread Anthony J. Bentley
COLUMNS handling in our tree is inconsistent. POSIX specifies that if COLUMNS is a valid value (read: 1 or greater), it takes precedence; otherwise, width is handled in an unspecified manner. Most programs follow COLUMNS, TIOCGWINSZ if that fails, and use 80 if that fails. Some do TIOCGWINSZ