Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!oz
From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: flow control by termcap
Message-ID: <494@yetti.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jul-87 13:41:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: yetti.494
Posted: Tue Jul  7 13:41:08 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jul-87 00:37:52 EDT
References: <493@yetti.UUCP>
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York U. Computing Services - Magic Group
Lines: 26

In article <493@yetti.UUCP> mike@yetti.UUCP (Mike Clarkson ) writes:
>
>You missed the point entirely.  It's not the GNU Emacs algorithm that's
>faulty, it's the termcap distributed with GNU Emacs that has the scroll
>regions disabled.  I'm quite confident in RMS' ability to implement a
>*proper* algorithm for screen updates.
>
	Well.. somebody missed a point. If you consider that just
	about everything in GNU is done for a reason, it is quite
	possible that the termcap change also have a reason. What I
	tried to point out to you is that Gosling's algorithm, although
	computationally intensive, if implemented correctly, works
	beautifully with scroll-regions. I *know* RMS is capable of
	implementing a proper algorithm, but since his code has no
	references whatsoever (literature refs that is), I do not
	know *what* his algorithm is, and whether it is optimal, both
	computationally or reactionally. (read: minimum number of chars
	and esc sequences to update the screen.)

	oz
-- 
You see things, and you say "WHY?"  	Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
But I dream things that never were; 	        ......!seismo!mnetor!yetti!oz
and say "WHY NOT?"			Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti]
		G. Bernard Shaw		Phonet: [416] 736-5257 x 3976
		Back To Methuselah