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 ^].