Roberto E. Vargas Caballero <k...@shike2.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
>
>> That's not what I'm talking about. Of course a tone of terminals have
>> smkx defined, but fish currently doesn't send it and works on (as far as
>> I know) anything but st.
>>
>> In other words:
>>
>> If you launch fish in { konsole, xterm, gnome-terminal, linux in-kernel
>> VTs, iTerm2, ... } your keys work, without smkx.
>
> Wrong again:
>Nope, fish works, though it turns out we bound the other escape manually. This means we might be able to simplify the key bindings if we do the smkx dance. > xterm (debian testing): > > $ tput rmkx > ^[[F (End key) > ^[[H (Home key) > $ tput smkx > ^[OF (End key) > ^[OH (Home key) > >> > The question here is, why do you want to write a shell knowing >> > it has bugs and it will not be able of running in all the possible >> > (current or future) terminals? >> >> The only term I currently know of that has a problem with fish is st. > > Did you test all the terminals in the terminfo definition? > > There are near of 400 terminals. Maybe you don't care and you think > terminals is an obsolete part of the unix world, and maybe you are > right, but then you should think why you are writing a shell. You > can try with something like Unity shell which has no historical > baggage. But if you write an Unix terminal application you have to > follow the terminfo definition, and it clearly says what you have > to do. > > You can say all the times that works in the 5 or 7 terminals > you have tested, that I can find dozen of terminals where it will not > work. I can say you that your shell will not work in a real vt220 > terminal, for example. And that's okay. fish isn't supposed to be a shell that works on everything - it's only really nice with 256 colors, though it can degrade to 8, while a vt220 would have 2. One feature that would be indisplayable is the autosuggestions. > > Regards, Regards
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
