Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 20:13:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) To: pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina) Cc: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xterm termcap definition Message-ID: <9610201813.AA26821@wavehh.hanse.de> In-Reply-To: <199610201726.KAA17317@precipice.shockwave.com> from "Paul Traina" at Oct 20, 96 10:26:05 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[I assume in this message "X11R6.1 xterm" is equivalent to "xterm from newer XFree releases]. [About the X11R6.1 entry that has been commited and backed out] > The new xterm entry is 100% compatible with X11R6.1, the problem was that > it appears to not be backwards compatible with older X11R6 entries. I > tested pretty thoroughly on both a sun and a FreeBSD system and had no > problems myself. You tested with X11R6.1 xterm on a Sun, I assume? I'd strongly recommend that we use a default entry that works with X11R5/Openwindows3.0 etc. xterms as well. And make the X11R6.1-extended entry availiable under a differnet name. Just leaves the problems how to point users to the new capability. > Regarding the alternate screen behaviour: > > I think the "alternate screen" feature should *not* be enabled bu > default, too many people are used to one-screen behaviour (i.e. the > last screen of output of more/less is still displayed when more > exits). Eric's and NetBSD's entries have alternate screen enabled and > should be changes before importing them to FreeBSD. I aplogize for > overlooking this. > > I disagree. The alternate screen behavior is the canonical behavior for > XTerms. It's been freebsd that's been different all this time, and I recall > just how much this torqed me off when I switched to freebsd. At least on Solaris no alternate screen is used. > I am actually one who uses this feature, but I activate it on > demand and think it should not be the default. This is not a new XFree > option, it is present in all my xterms (the actual clients, not the > termcap entries). AND, as one who uses alternate screen, I would > really like to have such an entry already present in the termcap > database under another name. See below. > > We may end up calling it xterm-new or something, given that it's xterm > generic. > > IN additional to the unusual behaviour of alternate screen, things in > FreeBSD are even worse. More's default behaviour is to exit immediatly > when EOF is hit, so people don't have a chance to see the last page > when an alternate screen is availiable. > > Right, and this is a bug in our more(1). We need to fix it, and we were > lucky enough to find it with the new xterm entries. I don't think so. The original less uses an alternate screen everytime it is availiable. What I feel to be *buggy* is to use the alternate screen when the option to quit on first EOF is set. It seems we agree that the option to quit on first EOF should not be the default on FreeBSD. Another change request :-) > > One could call it is bug in > more/less that is alternate screen is used at all when the option to > exit on the first EOF is set. While I think this should be fixed in > FreeBSD's more sources (so that end-on-eof enabled more *never* uses > the second screen), I still think the default xterm shouldn't use an > alternate screen. Just for people how use an alternate screen (like I > do sometimes), less should behave in a way that one can see the last > page :-) > > So, I actually ask for these commits: > - Make the default Xterm entry one from Eric's database, alternate > screens disabled. > > Not a bad idea, once we vette Eric's entry. > > - add an entry for TERM=xtermalt with the same contents as "xterm", > but with alternate screen anabled. > > Let's see if we can fix the alternate screen behavior in FreeBSD's executables. > I think we should move into the 90's. I think we'll have to see how many other systems actually use the alternate screen. I'm not sure using it is cannonical. > - add an entry for TERM=xfree to useXfree-xterm specific features, > alternate screens disabled. > - add the same entry as before, but with alternate screen > enabled. TERM=xfreealt. > > No. More likely we may do one for X11R6.1, and only one of these. Why? I'm sure having 4 "symmetric" entries is important to give users a chance to choose the right one: - xterm without x11r6.1 extensions without alternate screen - xterm without x11r6.1 extension with alternate screen - x11r6.1 entry w/o alternate - x11r6.1 entry with alternate I think using the alternate screen is a personal preference, while using x11r6.1 entensions is not. These options has nothing to do with each other and both should be switchable independent of the other. Therefore these 4 "symmetric" entries to allow any combination. Leaving out one entry is bad because it is non-trival to add a new one (for the user). Leaving out one has no advantage other than using less space for the termcap database, so, again, I vote for all 4 entries. The default entry for xterm should be one with the non-x11r6.1-entries. Which one (alternate screen or not) should be subject to voting. > - rename the former FreeBSD entry instead of removing. You never can > tell why people could want to revert to it. i.e. TERM=xtermold. > > Perhaps... I want to see how much it differs from the ancient entry before > moving further along that particular path. I meant, this "compat" entry should be the one that has been in FreeBSD before the Meta-Key fix, no matter whether the fix is relative to the old entry or a complete new entry. > - fix more/less so that the alternate screen is never used when the > option is set to exit on the first EOF. But use the alternate screen > when "exit on second EOF is hit", this is one of the things this > option exists for, to be able to use "auto-exit" on terminals with > an alternate screen. This suggested change will not alter behaviour > on non-alternate-screen-enabled xterm termcap entries at all. > > Absolutely, some sort of similar fix should be used, however that fix may > be more on the order of pausing at eof until a key is hit, so that alternate > screen usage remains consistent. I disagree. I really like to have all options: - Exit immedeatly when EOF is hit first - Exit when a forward-scrolling key is pressed while more/less is at EOF - Exit only on Keystroke reserved for exit Please keep it that way. I'm not sure FreeBSD's more does it now, but generic less does it, I like it and I think having these option doesn't hurt people not using them. What needs to be fixed is: - Exit on first EOF should not be the default, which is default in FreeBSD but not in generic less. - In exit-on-first-EOF mode the alternate screen, if present, should not be used. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de> http://cracauer.cons.org Fax +49 40 522 85 36
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9610201813.AA26821>