Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:03:22 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Problem with function keys codes with vt100 emulation
Message-ID: <20021107190322.GB23448@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20021106163952 DOT 02068e70 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com> <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20021106181835 DOT 02a5b3c0 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com> <20021107024215 DOT GA16492 AT redhat DOT com> <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20021106191839 DOT 02b745e0 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com> <20021107033609 DOT GA15105 AT redhat DOT com> <20021107081133 DOT G2180 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20021107153318 DOT GA27471 AT redhat DOT com> <20021107165659 DOT B24497 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20021107160635 DOT GD28177 AT redhat DOT com> <01a701c2868d$e71fd910$b001a8c0 AT coosbayreza>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01a701c2868d$e71fd910$b001a8c0@coosbayreza>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:45:54AM -0800, Reza Roodsari wrote:
>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 is nothing like that.  Someone, IMO, chose poorly when they selected
key sequences for the linux console and someone else chose to slavishly
emulate the linux console rather than some existing implementation like
xterm which already had some established key bindings.

I ported an editor to any number of systems and getting the editor to
work on the linux console was one of the biggest pains that I had.  The
editor had to understand all of the key bindings and the key bindings
for the console are close-but-not-quite like a number of other systems.
It looks almost like someone chose bindings based on a vague
recollection of a vt220 or xterm but didn't bother to check how those
systems implemented things.

>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.

It is not worth the effort, IMO.

Anyway, that's it for me on this thread.  I've gone too far down the
rathole.

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/