Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Behaviour of setjmp/longjmp and reg
Message-ID: <225800127@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 89 17:16:00 GMT
References: <25@torsqnt.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:torsqnt.UUCP:25:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:225800127:000:1116
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Feb 10 11:16:00 1989


>>>>> The subject being escape sequences from terminals and their
>problems >>>>>>>>

>>No multicharacter sequences are necessary. The computer it is attached to
>>makes good use of having the complete state of the keyboard at hand.

>Yes, but suppose you want to send information to a different machine.
>Do you send an image of the keyboard on each transition or should the
>the other machine maintain the state info?  How are you going to send
>it without multibyte sequences?  Why should a remote machine treat
>your keyboard any differently than the one connected to it (or even
>know the difference)?

As long as the line can handle 2*(number_of_keys) "chars", It should
be able to use the same up-and-down strokes. And, a cursory train of
thought would seem to indicate that a termcap-like table driven system
could be used at the far machine to make a keyboard independent
interface. Do many keyboards have more than 128 keys? The remote
machine SHOULDN'T have to treat remote keyboards differently. 

Perhaps we should begin to make a really SERIOUS distinction between
direct human input and other kinds.