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