Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:55:48 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: misc/14959: incomplete xterm termcap entry (see also bug gnu/5039) Message-ID: <19991119135547.G22444@futuresouth.com> In-Reply-To: <95694.943033724@monkeys.com> References: <19991119082025.A12676@mad> <95694.943033724@monkeys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 09:48:44AM -0800, a little birdie told me that Ronald F. Guilmette remarked > > My own personal ``final conclusion'' is that I should probably just do > what someone (I forget who) early on in this thread kinda hinted that > I should do... i.e. just go away. No, don't go away. At least, not before depositing your tithe in the box by the door... > I think that the post by Gregory Bond <gnb@itga.com.au> made it clear > that regardless of my personal beliefs about how this should all be > done ``right'', I'm swimming against the tide of history with regard > to _both_ the notion of adding options to various programs to allow > their users to disable screen save/restore selectively _and_ also > withj regards to the notion of maybe enhancing termcap so that it > would have separate and distinct codes for the terminal save & restore > operations. I think this is the biggest point everyone's been making. Besides, you yourself said you only liked the behavior with vi. Do you want to add switches to EVERYTHING else that overwrites the screen? Any full-screen mail client (mutt, pine, elm, ...), more, less, tin, nn, rn, lynx, screen, and a kadzillion others? Why not just add a switch to vi to make it try and use the escapes anyway, then you only have to alias 1 command instead of everything. I think the workaround shown by someone earlier adding a second termcap entry with the escapes and making vi a shell alias/function/whatever to set that as the TERM variable then invoke vi, is the most elegant solution overall. > (Obviously, somebody up there is trying to tell me that its past time for > me, as a person, to give up on my oldtime hacker command line orientation, > time for me to just join the point-and-drool crowd, and time for me to > just stop using xterm. History has spoken, and now it is _me_ that's > rapidly becoming the dinosaur. And no, I'm not kidding. I'm just about > to switch from using MH to using Netscape Messenger for my mail reading & > writing anyway. I have seen the future, and it is gooey... er... GUI.) Eek! Just when I was starting to have respect for you... ;) About the only reason I use X is xterm, so I can have a reasonable (30+) number of sessions open at once. The future may be gooey, but, mmmmm.... the past is comfy here.... > P.S. I think that maybe I just now discerned yet another way to get the > general kind of behavior I want from vi anyway... I guess what I really > want is just a `xvi' command which, when invoked, will just pop up a > whole new/separate xterm window... leaving the current one unscathed... > and which will just run vi in that new xterm window. Yea. That would > work too, and I can brpbably just make that a C-shell alias. Hmm... reminds me of the time I decided 'maybe I should learn this emacs thing and ditch vi'. That lasted about 5 minutes. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@futuresouth.com Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ FutureSouth Communications | ISPHelp ISP Consulting "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" 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?19991119135547.G22444>