Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ace.ee.lbl.gov!leres From: leres@ace.ee.lbl.gov (Craig Leres) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: insert character optimization for xterm termcap entry Message-ID: <784@helios.ee.lbl.gov> Date: 18 Aug 88 23:20:47 GMT References: <777@helios.ee.lbl.gov> <9900@eddie.MIT.EDU> Sender: usenet@helios.ee.lbl.gov Reply-To: leres@helios.ee.lbl.gov (Craig Leres) Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley Lines: 24 Jeff Siegal writes: > I would think that whether insert-mode should be preferred over insert > character would depend on the application. I claim that for the "Unix" application, insert mode is preferred. The termcap(5) manual entry agrees with me: [...] Most terminals with a true insert mode will not give ic, terminals which send a sequence to open a screen position should give it here. (Insert mode is preferable to the sequence to open a position on the screen if your terminal has both.) [...] If you use the insert character sequence, the overhead for each inserted character is 3 characters per character. If you use insert mode, the overhead is 4 characters to enter insert mode and 4 characters to leave insert mode. So when you insert more than 2 characters, it's cheaper to use insert mode. But this assumes that you always exit insert mode immediately after an insertion; since xterm allows movement while in insert mode, you can delay switch back to replacement mode. In some cases, you'll move somewhere else and do another insertion and save the 4 character end insert mode and 4 character enter insert mode sequences. Vi works this way. Craig