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