Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (MU) 9/23/84; site mungunni.OZ
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!munnari!mungunni!isaac
From: isaac@mungunni.OZ (Isaac Balbin)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Termcap Standardization
Message-ID: <410@mungunni.OZ>
Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 19:34:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: mungunni.410
Posted: Sun Aug 18 19:34:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 21:36:18 EDT
References: <192@medstar.UUCP> <747@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: isaac@mungunni.UUCP (Isaac Balbin)
Organization: Machine Intelligence Proj, CompSci, Melbourne Uni
Lines: 21

Yes, I have the same feelings about the function key entries in termcap.
I wrote a program that set up the function keys of a terminal which allowed
such programming. Initially I tried to use termcap alone. I found
that I needed to add the following entries.I know that keypad start 
and keypad end are already in existence, but vi seems to want them all for 
itself and in a specialised way. I also understand that one can get around
using the start sequences by programming them for *each* key in termcap
but that is not orthogonal or in line with other programs like sysline.
So, some of the things I added were:
/*
**	FS		= start sequence to address the function keys
**	FW		= string which depicts WHO the keypad programmed
**			  command will be sent to (eg the kds7362 allows one to 
**			  specify one of: host, screen, screen & host)
**	FE		= end keypad transmit mode
**	FM		= specifies the maximum number of bytes programmable
**			  into the function keys (combined total)
**			  VERY IMPORTANT -- sometimes hard to work out!
*/	
PS In the end, I settled on also using a .fkrc if it existed or an FK
environment variable.