Trass3r wrote: > Am 07.10.2011, 14:51 Uhr, schrieb Jens Mueller <[email protected]>: > > >Trass3r wrote: > >>>You could use ANSI codes on posix to avoid a dependency on curses: > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code#Colors > >>>But I think using curses is ok. ncurses is MIT licensed and can be > >>>used as a dynamic library, so I don't think there are license problems. > >>> > >>>However, I'd recommend to load ncurses dynamically with dlopen/dlsym > >>>and fallback to simple text output if the ncurses library cannot be > >>>loaded. > >> > >>+1 > >>There shouldn't be a hard dependency on curses. > > > >I had the impression that even though there is this standard how do I > >know that I have a standard-compliant terminal. Can I just assume this? > >I started using curses because I had the impression there may be > >non-standard terminals. But this seems to be minor issue. I will change > >this if people are happy with Windows and ISO/IEC 6429 compliant > >terminals only. > >Thanks. > > As Johannes already said, it's perfectly possible to implement both > approaches and choose at runtime.
I see. You mean using curses if available and falling back to ISO/IEC 6429. So you think that supporting ISO/IEC 6429 terminals is too limited, aren't you? Jens
