Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca!pogo!richk
From: richk@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Richard G. Knowles)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: MicroEMACS 3.10 bugs, fixes and a MAJOR improvement to file completion
Keywords: uEMACS 3.10
Message-ID: <7748@pogo.WV.TEK.COM>
Date: 15 Aug 89 20:27:52 GMT
References: <234@insyte.UUCP> <9847@j.cc.purdue.edu> <1675@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <9852@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: richk@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Richard G. Knowles)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.
Lines: 42

In article <9852@j.cc.purdue.edu> nwd@j.cc.purdue.edu (Daniel Lawrence) writes:
>In article <1675@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>>  I would humbly suggest that the previous ANSI sequence capability be
>>restored in addition to the TERMCAP stuff. Let the user compile for one
>>or the other. Some of us have very complex keyboards and want to use all
>>the functions.
>>	bill davidsen		(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM)
>
>	How about a comprimise here....  let the TCAP module scan for the
>termcap entries, and if a particular escape sequence is not in the termcap,
>use some standard translation rule... perhaps mapping it into the ALT area?
>Then the termcap keys will always be bound to the standard, machine
>independant bindings, and all the unusual  sequences generated on some
>TTYs can still be used.
>			Daniel Lawrence  voice: (317) 742-5153

This was one of the first things I "fixed" in 3.10 when I got it.  If a
"function key" sequence was detected, but didn't match any key definition in
the termcap, then the sequence was simply passed on as if it had been keyed
directly by the user (I was able to eliminate all but one timing dependancy
by doing this also).  I then wrote a macro (bound to ESC-[) that understood
what all the function keys sent.  When invoked it simply read keyboard
characters till it understood what function key it stood for, determined
what the key was bound to, and invoked the binding (either built-in or
macro).  If no binding was found then it simply inserted the key sequence
into the current buffer.

I did not attempt to handle function keys for which Daniel had not defined
"standard" names (as in the various incarnations of f11, f12, or keypad-5
that are available on the AT enhanced keyboard -- we use AT's via rlogin to
access our UNIX machines and it uses an ANSI-like escape sequence to
represent function keys.).

I sent the above changes to Daniel several weeks ago.  I'd be happy to share
it with others upon request.

-------- Whatever I say is my fault and no one elses! -----------

Richard G. Knowles                        richk@pogo.WV.TEK.COM
Graphics Printing and Imaging                (503) 685-3860
Tektronix, Inc; D/S 63-356
Wilsonville, Or 97070			or just yell "Hey, Rich!"