On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:04 -0400, Erik Osheim wrote: > > I've seen some emails you sent around 2006 detailing problems you found > > with Python's curses bindings. I'm running into some of those same > > problems now. However, based on the version of Urwid I have installed > > (0.9.7.1) it seems like you have it figured out... my test[2] shows > > both the "print" and the "urwid" case working, whereas the "curses" > > case falls down. > > > > I read Urwid's curses_display module, but I didn't see anything > > substantially different in your use of curses from mine. Do you have > > any advice (other than giving up on curses and using Uriwd[3])? I > > noticed you still have disclaimers about UTF-8 on your main page--what > > is the state of the curses module in your opinion?
Hi Erik, I don't see any difference between your use of curses and Urwid's either. You might try commenting out parts of what Urwid does when initializing curses until it stops working too :-) The problem I've run into is that you can't rely on your users' version of Python having been linked against ncursesw (the one that works with UTF8 and other interesting encodings.) This was one of the reasons I started work on the raw_display module. raw_display just assumes a basic subset of terminal escape sequences and tosses them at stdout. It's hackish, but it avoids problems like the one you're running into as well as TERM misconfiguration or missing termcap entries. As for being afraid of reimplementing your UI in Urwid, I can say that I'm in the process of some pretty significant cleanups that will make many things easier in the next release. So, it might be worth your while to wait a bit before switching. On the other hand you could stay with what you have and keep developing it. Maybe terminal UI libraries are like IRC clients and text editors -- you can never have too many to choose from :-) Ian _______________________________________________ Urwid mailing list [email protected] http://lists.excess.org/mailman/listinfo/urwid
