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. Stallman 
As 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.