Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!unido!opal!net
From: net@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Screen 2.0 change
Message-ID: <2978@kraftbus.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: 25 Mar 91 10:17:40 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.164204.21361@eci386.uucp> <2921@kraftbus.cs.tu-berlin.de> <1991Mar24.200524.13960@eci386.uucp>
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Lines: 17

woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> Ah, now I see the dilema.  I had assumed that screen wasn't actually
> trying to emulate some virtual terminal, but rather just providing
> windowing, and allowing curses to use the existing terminal definition.
> 
> I can see the advantages of doing this,

The main advantage of not making use of curses is that the application
works.  When I started development of screen I decided to not use
curses because of its bugs.

In the meantime I'm not sure if it had been possible at all to provide
screen's entire functionality by means of (BSD-) curses (such as support
for the ISO2022 multiple character set functions in each window).

--
Oliver Laumann    net@tub.cs.tu-berlin.de  net@tub.UUCP  net@gnu.ai.mit.edu