Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Behaviour of setjmp/longjmp and registers
Message-ID: <9608@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 7 Feb 89 15:51:24 GMT
References: <25@torsqnt.UUCP> <8867@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <9480@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3112@xyzzy.UUCP> <483@maxim.ERBE.SE> <9597@smoke.BRL.MIL> <WAYNE.89Feb6150523@dsndata.uucp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 27

In article <WAYNE.89Feb6150523@dsndata.uucp> wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes:
>you cant be serious.

Mostly I am.

>do you ever use vi or emacs?

When I'm forced to I do.

>both of them need to use a single ESC key to work.

No, as a matter of fact EMACS wants a "meta" key.
On terminals lacking a suitable "meta" key, ESC is often substituted.

This use of ESC never was essential, it's just a kludge that should
have been avoided in the first place.  (TECO was the first and worst
offender, but at least it predated X3.64 so it had an excuse.)

>if the X3.64 standard says you can[not] use the escape key,
>then the X3.64 standard isnt going to be used much.  

That's not exactly what it says.  It does require that escape sequences
be properly handled, and in many environments that can't be reliably
done if you let users bang away on a separate ESC key.

Note that I suggested a second alternative if you don't like the one
about removing the ESC key.