This is the mail archive of the cygwin@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Problem with function keys codes with vt100 emulation


Hi Christopher,

First, thanks to you and Randall, I now understand the issue and have made
my peace with the reported problem.

This email is about your expressed opinion that the cygwin key bindings
could have been better than they currently are.  I have been thinking about
what you are saying, and it seems to me that this is very much like the <LF>
vs. <CR><LF> issue.  No choice is right for every situation and there will
always be people with strong opinions on both side.  That's why cygwin
handles it the way it does - "you, the people, get a choice".  And now
everyone is happy (or at least fully responsible for the results they get).

It occurred to me that the cygwin console, being that it is fathered by Unix
but lives in the house of Windows, could suffer from the same
multiple-personality disorder.  So one way out would be to make the terminal
emulation choice an install time option.  This would keep you backward
compatible and also give you a 2nd shot at trying something totally new,
like the new key bindings.

As a side benefit, it may solve my problem too :-)

Regards,

Reza

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Problem with function keys codes with vt100 emulation


> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:57:00PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:33:18AM -0500, Chris Faylor wrote:
> >>On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:11:33AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:36:09PM -0500, Chris Faylor wrote:
> >>>>I see what I was missing.  F1 == ^[[[A, Up arrow == ^[[A.  F1 has one
> >>>>extra bracket.
> >>>>
> >>>>I think this is also kind of lame but changing it now would probably
> >>>>break too many things.  I'd like to make it the same as termcap but
> >>>>it's too late now.
> >>>
> >>>What's the problem?  It's the same sequence produced by the linux
> >>>console.
> >>
> >>The linux console is lame.
> >
> >The windows console is lame, too.  So it should be ok.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have the source to the windows console.  I do
> have the source to the cygwin console and I am distressed to see that
> someone could have used better emulation for the function keys in cygwin
> but chose not to.  If I didn't think that many people were relying on
> the current behavior, I would change it.
>
> Why are we having this discussion again?
>
> cgf
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]