Date: Sat, 20 May 95 17:58:58 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: ache@astral.msk.su (Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage) Cc: nox@jelal.hb.north.de, freebsd-bugs@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Changed information for PR misc/409 Message-ID: <9505202358.AA07773@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <PRONbllyk2@astral.msk.su> from "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" at May 21, 95 00:49:28 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 1) It isn't a bug, read man 5 termcap about ks/ke, > your ks/ke interpretation is wrong. Sorry. All I have ar Sun, Ultrix, DEC, SCO, and Gould man pages on line at the moment. The Sun ones were the ones I was using as cannon. > 2) Those ks/ke comes from original VT100 which don't > have any additional keypad expect PF1-PF4, so it > forced to use numeric keypad. Since xterm emulates VT > family, it preserve this historycal cruft. The historical termcap entries (at least under Ultrix, which ought to be the right ones for DEC terminals) for keypad indicate an expection that the keypad will be used in lieu of cursor keys. The VT100 itself already has cursor keys. The switch on the PF1/cursor return sequences (seperate from the keypad mode siwtch) affect only whether 'O' or '[' is used as the second character in the escape sequence sent by the terminal). I think there are two versions of historical cruft being mixed here, with the applicable cruft being that the keypad works for entering numbers in vi on my Ultrix box. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9505202358.AA07773>