Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!uport!plocher
From: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: terminfo
Keywords: terminfo termcap
Message-ID: <440@uport.UUCP>
Date: 26 Aug 88 04:57:34 GMT
References: <508@altos86.UUCP> <10544@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <4577@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher)
Organization: Microport Systems, Scotts Valley, CA
Lines: 23

In article <4577@cbmvax.UUCP> ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) writes:
>>3) terminfo handles input escape sequences, such as what the arrow
>
>But termcap *will* have that if you put it in...  A significant advantage
>of termcap over terminfo is that it is "free form" ... you can add
>capabilities without having to redefine (and recompile) your database.

Except that only *you* will have compiled them in - if you give your stuff
to me it will be useless unless I *too* modify my curses source. (if I am lucky
enough to have it :-)

I am assuming you wish to have a curses call such as getch() that returns
a "value" such as 65 (for 'A') or 129 ('a umlaut') or 329 ('<F1>').  You
aren't (I hope) assuming that the program which needs to 'see' a <F1> keypress
will actually parse its input WRT the entry in the terminfo database?

terminfo is useful in that it does this work for you - in a portable way.
termcap requires your program to 'know' too much of how the terminal
database is structured.

  -John Plocher

But *why* it has to be in binary format I wouldn't know :-(