On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Aurélien Aptel<aurelien.ap...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Anselm R Garbe<garb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2009/8/22 Ray Kohler <ataraxia...@gmail.com>: >>> I'm rather curious on where st will go, and what kinds of things other >>> terminals do that it will or won't do. >> >> Well my plan is to achieve *good* xterm compliance and 256 color >> support. As you know xterm is not really fully vt100 or vt220 >> compliant, so that's also not a goal of st. > Full xterm support will be difficult. There are lots of features in > its terrible source code. Just check the official README, it's kind of > scary:
Never mind garbeam, he is being delusional as usual. uriel > >> Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here >> >> >> This is undoubtedly the most ugly program in the distribution. It was one of >> the first "serious" programs ported, and still has a lot of historical >> baggage. >> Ideally, there would be a general tty widget and then vt102 and tek4014 >> subwidgets so that they could be used in other programs. We are trying to >> clean things up as we go, but there is still a lot of work to do. > > >>> In particular: >>> - Is a scrollback buffer objectionable in principle, such that we >>> should expect to "just use GNU screen"? > IMHO the scrollback buffer is useless since you can use different > tools (as you said) to achieve that ($PAGER, screen, etc). > >>> - Will it implement enough of xterm's capabilities that I could lie >>> about $TERM and expect it to mostly work? I log into many remote >>> machines of various OS types and ages, and some of them don't make it >>> easy to install user-specific terminfo entries. > GNU screen handle this by fallbacking to vt100. See > <http://www.slac.stanford.edu/comp/unix/package/epics/extensions/iocConsole/screen.1.html#lbAN> > >
