Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!smsc.sony.com!dce
From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: xterm -- how can I disable screen restore?
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.215849.10616@smsc.sony.com>
Date: 19 Apr 91 21:58:49 GMT
References: <1047@redford.UUCP> <9104181754.AA00842@alex.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Organization: Sony Microsystems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 27


In article <9104181754.AA00842@alex.lcs.mit.edu>, gildea@expo.lcs.mit.EDU (Stephen Gildea) writes:
|> No, it doesn't.  titeInhibit removes the ti and te entries from the
|> termcap entry, but xterm still obeys them if they get sent anyway.
|> That's why it doesn't work for SunOS vi; it doesn't use termcap, so
|> still knows how to send ti and te.
|> 
|> Now, to answer the original question, Why?  Answer: it's a bug.

We have the same problem (even more so) in SVR4-land, so I took a look
at modifying xterm.  It was easy to defeat the switching of the buffer,
but it still clears the screen (because, of course, ti and te have
multiple commands).

I suspect that the "easy" way to fix this is to define a new pair of
sequences that mean "save the current position and switch buffers" and
"switch buffers and restore the last saved position".  What do you
think, Steve?

In other words, the best way to deal with this is to use terminfo to
your advantage and create a personal entry.

--
...David Elliott
...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
...(408)944-4073
..."Once a head-crusher, always a head-crusher" - Mark M.