Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!ajs From: ajs@hpfcla.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Question about "ul" in termcap Message-ID: <43900004@hpfcla.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 13:29:00 EST Article-I.D.: hpfcla.43900004 Posted: Tue Apr 10 13:29:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Apr-84 02:18:58 EST References: <43900002@hpfcla.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division - Fort Collins, CO Lines: 38 Nf-ID: #R:hpfcla:43900002:hpfcla:43900004:000:1971 Nf-From: hpfcla!ajs Apr 2 10:29:00 1984 Thanks for the quick and succinct responses. Here is the question again, followed by excerpts from the answers. Alan Silverstein Q> From termcap(5): Q> If your terminal correctly generates underlined characters Q> (with no special codes needed) even though it does not Q> overstrike, then you should give the capability ul. Q> It's not clear HOW the terminal should generate underline characters Q> without special codes. Are there terminals that can backspace and add a Q> non-destructive underscore (only)? Is that what this is intended for? A1> There are terminals which cannot normally overstrike but which, if sent A1> the sequence "x_" will display an underscored x. These A1> terminals are described by "ul". Terminals described by "os" obviously A1> can do this. Thus, it is correct for more(1) to use this scheme to A1> underline on terminals described by either of these attributes. A2> When I found that the 4.1c BSD termcap entry for Ann Arbor Ambassadors A2> had 'ul' and that they didn't work with more(1) or ul(1), I suspected A2> that the definition was funny. A2> I interpret the definition "terminal underlines though it doesn't A2> overstrike" as meaning "some terminals can take the sequence character- A2> backspace-underscore and translate it into underscore". A3> Perhaps your termcap lacks the us= and ue= entries which tell how to A3> active and terminate the underlining. (In fact my terminal as I write A3> this does not have the ul property but does underline (because this A3> terminal does have magic cookies around the underlining). No, the termcap has "us" and "ue" (and even "so" and "se"); the question was when it also needed "ul", and why. A4> Some terminals (I think there's a Concept that does this) transform A4> _ (or actually any _ that is printed on top of A4> a visible character) into an underlined character. So foo\b\b\b___ A4> makes "foo" become underlined also.