On 15/10/15 20:34, Bob Proulx wrote: > 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.
OK cool. These are old linux console types I think, and so probably never used now in any case. They're not in the terminfo database at least. I'll restore to the orig single entry. cheers, Pádraig. p.s I could tighten with a single entry with FNM_EXTMATCH, but it's not worth complicating this feature with that GNU specific extension. BTW I just sent an update for the fnmatch man page for FNM_EXTMATCH: http://marc.info/?l=linux-man&m=144489952506596&w=2
