Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:24:53 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: termcap versus terminfo Message-ID: <3C467C45.2D7A3381@mindspring.com> References: <20020116165926.N451@canonware.com> <20020116230552.O451@canonware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason Evans wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 04:59:26PM -0800, Jason Evans wrote: > > Are there any good reasons for not making this change? > > A NetBSD developer I was chatting with this evening pointed out that > terminfo is not extensible in a portable manner, since the compiled > terminfo files use a pre-defined structure, where each element corresponds > to a particular capability. While this doesn't make the compiled format > useless, it does make portable access of vendor extensions (non-standard > capability keys) more or less impossible. termcap doesn't have this > problem. One of the same objections I raised... BSD minds think alike... 8-) > Interestingly, he also mentioned that NetBSD developers have continued to > work on the original BSD curses code, and they have implemented the > majority of the extensions documented in SUSv2 at this point. It's worth looking at; I think that abstracting the capability code from the ncurses code would be a good idea, if it could be done, though, since t's so widely used and active maintained, so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C467C45.2D7A3381>