Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!dayton!mmm!ems!rosevax!cimcor!mike
From: mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: key bindings for Micro-EMACS
Message-ID: <450@cimcor.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Aug-87 16:19:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: cimcor.450
Posted: Tue Aug 25 16:19:24 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Aug-87 00:43:53 EDT
References: <449@cimcor.UUCP> <295@mundoe.mu.oz>
Organization: Grenier & friends, Forest Lake, MN
Lines: 38
Summary: terminfo for emacs

In article <295@mundoe.mu.oz>, glf@mundoe.mu.oz (Giuseppe Fiusco) writes:
> There was a very simple reason for not using the terminal description
> library routines to do the key-bindings. If you look carefully at the
> source for MicroEMACS you will see that it is used on a large 
> number of different systems (not just UNIX) so using the terminal
> description package would not allow for a consistant, usable implementation
> across the different systems.

Yes, that's true. However, you will note that MicroEMACS *does* use
the termcap definitions for output - so why not also on input. The other
operating systems and machines supported by MicroEMACS are usually 
consistant within themselves as a result of their lack of support for
remote terminals ( MSDOS, etc). VMS is an exception. The uEMACS code
selectively compiles the appropiate code for a given operating system.
See estruct.h 

I'm new to UNIX so pardon my ignorance. I see that termcap is used almost
exclusively and not curses for most public domain programs. It
seems that curses is the approach taken by current and future AT&T 
versions of UNIX (does POSIX address the curses issues ? if not, it should)
and the calls provided by curses sure seem cleaner and easier than termcap.
Does one choose termcap over curses because curses isn't provided as 
universally? 

How about a public domain implementation of curses on top of termcap
so one wouldn't always have to write to the lowest common denominator. 
Steve Jobs is probably right in saying that some common windowing and graphics
interface is desperately needed for UNIX if it is going to maintain itself 
against the OS/2s and Macs in this world ( at least in that range of hardware).
Curses isn't that answer, of course.

Sorry for drifting off the subject....  :-)
It just seemed that using the informational database we already had
is probably easier then having to rebind the various keystrokes for
each type of terminal one is supporting.

    -Mike
    ihnp4!meccts!cimcor!mike