Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!CC5.BBN.COM!jr From: jr@CC5.BBN.COM.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: While we're blaming the terminal... Message-ID: <8612102044.AA14165@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Wed, 10-Dec-86 14:49:04 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8612102044.AA14165 Posted: Wed Dec 10 14:49:04 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Dec-86 07:46:51 EST References: <2789@slate.Diamond.BBN.COM> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 20 I really have to differ with Matt's opinion about escape sequences. The VT100 "things like ESC-[-A" actually follow a well-thought-out standard known as ANSI X3.64 for coding characters to and from a terminal. It is very easy to write a parser for these sequences. It becomes a very powerful inter-process procedure call mechanism if you want. Given that there are only 128 codes available for most terminals, it is just not possible to assign every function key a unique single-character code. ESC is the "escape" character for extending the character set beyond the 128 (actualy 96) available characters. I think the VT100 does it right. Also, given the existence of a real standard, not to mention the VT100 beinbg a de-facto standard before that, things could be a lot worse. Now if only emacs had an ANSI parser...maybe I should go add it. /jr jr@bbn.com ...!bbnccv!jr