Roberto E. Vargas Caballero <k0ga_AT_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
Received on Thu Sep 03 2015 - 12:00:35 CEST