Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cornell.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!jqj From: jqj@cornell.UUCP (J Q Johnson) Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Re: emacs under flow control Message-ID: <3086@cornell.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 09:44:48 EDT Article-I.D.: cornell.3086 Posted: Fri Jul 12 09:44:48 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:53:33 EDT References: <2899@cornell.UUCP> <3300004@prism.UUCP> Reply-To: jqj@gvax.UUCP (J Q Johnson) Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. Lines: 19 Summary: A previous posting notes the problem of VT220 vs VT100 padding. This is, in fact, a more general problem. There are dozens of emulators for VT100s (and many emulators for other popular terminals). Each has its own padding requirements, but since they all have the same command set one typically uses the same "terminal type" to describe them to the operating system. So if you're using padding instead of flow control and want to be truly pessimal, you have to pad for the worst case of the worst case emulation, which can be VERY VERY slow (example: scrolling on one of the 60-line VT100 emulators like the Ergo8000 or even worse on a graphics terminal like the VT241). Don't get me wrong--I'd rather have big buffers in terminals or some oob flow control, and am not a fan of ^S/^Q; still, ^S/^Q does have its advantages. So, I'm not going to junk my flow controlled hardware, and AM going to continue to use Emacs. I'm still waiting for a consensus to develop on character remaping. So far, my impression is that most people feel that remapping ^\ to ^S and ^] to ^Q (or vice versa) is superior to ad hoc function reassignments and to using other character sequences. Until the consensus develops (keep those comments coming!) I strongly recommend that Emacs package designers NOT bind functions to ^\ or ^].