Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:55:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@freebsd.org> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu>, bvsmith@lbl.gov, ports%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu, gj%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu, me%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu, asami%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: xfig.3.1.4 extension to support vi -C signals linkage Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960812185333.3200C-100000@carrier.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199608122139.XAA00582@vector.jhs.no_domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > I'm not asking for a holy grail, I'm simply saying that rather than > > modifying n ports in the same way, it would make far more sense to > > evolve a more generic communications mechanism that *other* editors > > could also use, > > Well if someone wants to take what I have done & change it to send some > appropriate X event, that'd be nice. > It'd probably be easy for an experienced X11 hacker to do, > as my diffs point the way to where to hack in vi, > but many others know more about X than me ... I'm not completely sure that doing it via X is right either. Doesn't this point towards some kind of object oriented type approach? Let me do some more reading on this, maybe it's time to follow Amancio's pointers towards the ILU people.... > > > and would have well-defined hooks for ports authors to > > register if they so wished (catching SIGUSR1 is not my definition of a > > "hook" :-). > > Yes, a standardised X event would be more attractive to have. > Again, my diffs point the way to where in each port the event handling > should be done. > > Meanwhile it's fully functional with SIGUSR1 (& yes I too felt sqeamish > first time I used it, I'd forgotten & got used to it). > > I'd be willing to later change everything to X events myself, but I don't > really know enough, I'd need some very explicit directed RTFMs, > & they'd have to be machine readable, I have nothing but the paper pink > X Win Sys Usrs Guide for R3 & R4 here, & no spare budget & book shelf space > for a meter/yard of new X books. > > I also have a certain dubious doubt/lack of confidence about vi & other > intrinsically non X things handing out X events, whether its wise, > whether its easy, whether some intermediate process would be desirable, > that would be a signal to X event converter, whether that would > increase latency unacceptably. > > I hope a desire for a later elegance yet to be defined & written > won't stop us benefiting from functionality meantime. > > Julian > -- > Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/ > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.960812185333.3200C-100000>