Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Termcap, IC, and IM
Message-ID: <10864@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 28 Aug 89 21:31:56 GMT
References: <20633@adm.BRL.MIL> <1989Aug28.151908.24779@agate.uucp> <10860@smoke.BRL.MIL> <19298@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 19

In article <19298@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>In article <10860@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>... You should specify both im/ei and ic only if the terminal
>>requires both.
>This is misleading, because various applications (including vi)
>decide that a terminal can insert at all by examining `im' without
>looking at `ic'.

Yes, "vi" is coded that way.  It's not an error to fail to use a
given capability, just an inefficiency.  I think all the termcap
and terminfo documentation has explicitly stated that the terminal
description should include both (im & ic) only if both are required
in order to insert a character.  "vi" is being lazy.  We have other
termcap-driven editors around here that do it right.  If "vi" is
important to you, by all means adjust your terminal description to
cater to its quirks.

By the way, I've seen terminals with an "ic" capability where
editors were faster if you DIDN'T try to use the "ic" capability.