On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Aled Gest <himse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm sure you could have a ton of field days, describing for hours all >> kinds of irrelevant crap. Maybe you can read a book about adapting to >> different standards within different social groups instead of >> lecturing to people who don't care. It's a mailing list. Calling >> people stupid is not 'disproportionate aggression,' it's just calling >> stupid people stupid. Sorry if your life has caused you to consider >> honesty 'aggressive.' > > Perhaps in your eagerness to overreact you missed the point I was > making, so I'll simplify it for you: > > Filling development threads with "you're an idiot" ... "no you" > detracts from the thread's ability to develop.
This might be true, but also sometimes the only proper way to react to a stupid idea is to point out that it is stupid. >> Which extant terminal emulators behave the way your proposed >> functionality describes? > > In terms of using pipes to communicate with other programs, all of > them. In terms of doing so without consuming a PTY or spawning a child > process, none that I know of. > > Are you suggesting that we shouldn't develop new software because no > existing software does what we want? I've seen no strict definition > specifying how a terminal emulator must communicate with other > processes. Whether it acts like a host process spawning a child and > communicating through a PTY, or gets spawned as a child process itself > reading and writing directly through pipes, it's still a terminal > emulator. That the concept of 'pty' still exists in the year 2009 is quite fucking amazing. I'm surprised we don't carry punchcards around anymore. uriel
