Re: Call for libtermcap ressurection from the dead

2000-09-16 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:23:42AM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: Avdantages: 1) We'll be 100%-compatible with all libtermcap programs again. 2) Save LOTS of space for static binaries since libtermcap is extremally small. Opinions? I don't object. The namespace collisions in src/games

Re: Call for libtermcap ressurection from the dead

2000-09-16 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote: On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:23:42AM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: Avdantages: 1) We'll be 100%-compatible with all libtermcap programs again. 2) Save LOTS of space for static binaries since libtermcap is extremally small. Opinions?

Re: Call for libtermcap ressurection from the dead

2000-09-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:38:33AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: Fine with me, provided you handle any problems with mixing the libraries. I think "-ltermcap -lcurses" should somehow use the curses interfaces despite termcap being first. Yes, I fix this occurances recently just for purity

Call for libtermcap ressurection from the dead

2000-09-15 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
I just found today yet another ncurses tgoto emulation bug (now can't handle "%.", triggered by 'screen') and am angry-motivated enough for this proposal. Avdantages: 1) We'll be 100%-compatible with all libtermcap programs again. 2) Save LOTS of space for static binaries since libtermcap is