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.