Pádraig Brady wrote: > Pádraig Brady wrote: > > -TERM con132x25 > > -TERM con132x30 > > -TERM con132x43 > > -TERM con132x60 > > -TERM con80x25 > > -TERM con80x28 > > -TERM con80x30 > > -TERM con80x43 > > -TERM con80x50 > > -TERM con80x60 > > +TERM con[0-9]*x[0-9]* > > Going to tighten that to: > > +TERM con80x?? > +TERM con132x??
I don't know. But selecting just 80 and 132 width terminals specifically doesn't feel as good as the originally suggested wildcard matching any size of terminal. It doesn't feel right. Is there a reason you are not wanting to make it a generic size? > I've not heard any objections about this, > so will apply later. I think the original wildcard is fine. Bob
