Re: MakeTermcap weirdness

* Michael Schroeder (Mar 29, 2005 18:10):
> > Two things with MakeTermcap bugs me:
> > 
> > 1.  Why does it
> > 
> >       strcpy(Term, "TERM=screen");
> > 
> >     if $SCREENCAP is set?

> Hmm, I don't see why it shouldn't do that.

Well, it doesn't allow me to set SCREENCAP in my profile and use term in
my screenrc.

> > I guess one solution to 2 is to add
> > 
> > terminfo xterm-256color ""
> > Co\#256:AB=\E[48;5;%p1%dm:AF=\E[38;5;%p1%dm
> > 
> > to ones .screenrc, but what I'd really want is to have TERMCAP not
> > being set at all, as some applications wrongly check for it before
> > checking the terminfo database.

> Yes, I'm also in favor of dropping $TERMCAP but didn't dare to do so
> for now. Hmm, lets ask the list if there are strong opinions against
> dropping it. (It would be an option in config.h, of course.)

Anything that takes me one step further away from termcap is good by me.

> All those terminal capaility issues are quite sad, it should have been
> designed completely different. xterm & vim do it right, vim uses an
> escape sequence to ask xterm about its capabilities. In other words,
> the terminfo entry should be stored inside of the terminal.

Yeah, that would have been a better solution.  I also wish terminal
manipulation was a separate output process from actual screen output,
i.e., no messing with \E sequences and such, but simply sending commands
to the terminal on a dedicated channel.

> (A first step would be if tools like ssh would "forward" the terminfo
> entry if one logs into another host...)

Yeah, that would really save a lot of work,
        nikolai

-- 
::: name: Nikolai Weibull    :: aliases: pcp / lone-star / aka :::
::: born: Chicago, IL USA    :: loc atm: Gothenburg, Sweden    :::
::: page: minimalistic.org   :: fun atm: gf,lps,ruby,lisp,war3 :::
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}