Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!linus!philabs!ttidca!hollombe From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: vi vs. emacs Message-ID: <3019@ttidca.TTI.COM> Date: 4 Aug 88 00:53:59 GMT References: <16697@brl-adm.ARPA> <517@uva.UUCP> <661@buengc.BU.EDU> <12510@ism780c.isc.com> Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) Organization: The Cat Factory Lines: 25 In article <12510@ism780c.isc.com> mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) writes: }In article ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: } >I should point out children that Control-? does not exist and is } >a figment of the BSD control character printing routine. }Sorry, Ron. This doesn't come from BSD, although it's popularized there. }I've seen references to ^? being translated to DELETE dated back in October }1977 in RFC #734 (SUPDUP Display Protocol which ran on the ITS, TOPS-20 and }Stanford's SAIL operating system at a machine at (each) MIT, Stanford, and }SRI International). May I direct your attention to any ASCII chart? The difference between any control character and it's corresponding printable character is the setting of the high order bit. E.g.: '@' is 64 decimal. '^@' is null (64 - 64 == 0). The delete character is 127 decimal. 127 - 64 == 63. Know what the ASCII equivalent of decimal 63 is? It's '?'. Thus, referring to delete as '^?' is perfectly logical and in keeping with the ASCII standard. It has nothing to do with BSD or SUPDUP except that they acknowledge the ASCII standard. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe