>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 08:42:29AM -0500, T.E.Dickey wrote:
> > (I'd like to entirely disentangle PDCURSES, NCURSES, but don't want to
> > hold up 2.8.3 for that - it's something that I work on when I happen
> > to think about when working on the win32 port).
>
> How about getting rid of slang?
I'm neutral on that (there are a number of people who think the opposite ;-).
Since there's no ongoing development on the slang-specific code, it's not
a maintenance burden, and of course there are people who prefer the intangible
aspects of linking with slang.
> As was mentioned on the list before, slang supports regular curses
no - slang supports something that can be compared to curses, but
it's not compatible. (doesn't act the same, has a different calling
syntax and different library binding, doesn't solve the problems that
curses does).
> interface these days, and there is even a bit of code that hangs around
> slang just for the sole purpose of supporting lynx. And I was under the
> impression that that is the new recommended way of using slang.
I hadn't noticed that.
> Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
--
Thomas E. Dickey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
