Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:50:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/14959: incomplete xterm termcap entry (see also bug gnu/5039) Message-ID: <199911172150.NAA31027@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR misc/14959; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: misc/14959: incomplete xterm termcap entry (see also bug gnu/5039) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:43:04 -0800 In message <19991117152321.O17332@futuresouth.com>, you wrote: >[Cc's trimmed] > >On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 12:56:07PM -0800, a little birdie told me >that Ronald F. Guilmette remarked >> >> When running (n)vi in an xterm window, (n)vi should save the current >> xterm window contents on startup and then restore the old xterm >> contentx upon exit (or backgrounding). But it doesn't. > >This was discussed a few months back (on -hackers, maybe? Don't quite >remember...), and the prevailing opinion was that most people PREFERED >the FreeBSD behavior. I certainly do; if I ^Z vi while I'm working I >want to still be able to see the contents of it, among other things. As I mentioned in response to another fellow who said (basically) the same thing as you just said, if you want vi to behave in a certain way, then fine. Hack vi until it behaves the way you want. (Perhaps vi should have a command line option that would enable or disable the screen save/restore behavior... one that would apply to *ALL* terminal types that have this capability.) But please do not cripple _my_ xterm termcap entry just because _you_ don't like what one particular system utility program is doing with that complete and accurate (termcap) infor- mation. The termcap entry for a given terminal type should be as complete and accurate as possible because it is there for the benefit of _all_ of the programs that use the termcap database. Deleting perfectly correct capability descriptions from termcap entries as an indirect way of ``dumbing down'' certain specific programs (until those specific programs are dumb enough to suit the tastes of some portion of the user base) doesn't seem at all kosher to me. Let termcap be termcap! If you don't like vi, then fix vi. >It was a single termcap property though, IIRC. I'll see if I can't dig >it out of my archives... Thank you. I would appreciate it. (I *really* want the necessary termcap additions to make this work ``right''.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911172150.NAA31027>