Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!rms@prep From: rms@prep Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: flow control Message-ID: <283@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 19:10:13 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.283 Posted: Fri Nov 1 19:10:13 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 06:09:16 EST Sender: daemon@mit-eddi.UUCP Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 14 From: Richard M. StallmanAs far as I can understand it, the "xo" flag says that a terminal USUALLY uses flow control, and recommends generating no padding. This does not imply that the terminal cannot be operated without flow control. In fact, it is possible that, if given padding as specified by the termcap entry, the terminal might just never generate XOFF. Since avoiding the use of flow control is always best, it would be undesirable for Emacs to assume that flow control must be used on these terminals. I recommend that Emacs users do everything they can to avoid the use of nontransparent flow control protocols, including using padding, turning off flow control in the terminal, selling the badly designed terminals, or throwing them off the roof.