Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Hints for using curses (was Re: curses - problem... NO)
Message-ID: <444@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 12 Dec 89 19:35:54 GMT
References: <21708@adm.BRL.MIL> <8074@cs.yale.edu> <1899@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <532@mwtech.UUCP> <1916@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 30

In article <1916@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes:
>In article <532@mwtech.UUCP> martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes:
>|    Use video attributes only to *emphasize* an information, not as
>|    the information itself. Though you may assume, todays terminals
>|    have (at least) modes for
>|         - blinking
>|         - underlining
>|         - reverse video
>|         - half intensity
>
>  You may assume such a thing, but I wouldn't use anything but standout
>if you want maximum portability. There are too many really dumb
>terminals still out there.

I believe that's what the poster was saying - that you shouldn't *depend* on
the existence of such attributes but it doesn't hurt to use them if 
they are available.  Software can take advantage of optional features
and still be "portable".  I agree that there are still many dumb terminals
out there.  I also feel that if I were developing a serious word processor
it would be reasonable to exclude dumb terminals completely.  Sophisticated
software deserves a sophisticated environment although it's hard to know
where to draw the line.  When do optional features become required features? 
It's all market driven, of course.  There is too much good software on the 
market to justify dumb terminals any more.

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232
unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott