Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!hao!oddjob!mimsy!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: termcap "sg#0" capability
Message-ID: <6625@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 30-Oct-87 02:26:56 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6625
Posted: Fri Oct 30 02:26:56 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Nov-87 05:51:26 EST
References: <847@quacky.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <847@quacky.UUCP> rmg@mips.UUCP (Richard M. Geiger) writes:
>However, I have a termcap driven program which behaves differently
>when sg#0 is specified than when no sg capability is given. The
>developer asserts that there *is* a semantic difference between sg#0
>and no sg.

The developer is wrong.  I know that some people have tried to give
special semantics to sg#0 and ug#0, but it has never to my knowledge
been adopted in the official termcap (or terminfo) documentation,
and when I updated TERMCAP(5) for 4.3BSD I continued to uphold this
tradition.

If the developer can explain what he thinks the special semantics
should be, have him contact me.

	Gwyn@BRL.MIL