Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!gorodish!guy From: guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Anyone have (or going to have) a X implementation of curses? Message-ID: <52310@sun.uucp> Date: 6 May 88 19:07:23 GMT References: <3049@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <2698@geac.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.uucp Lines: 22 Keywords: curses, convert > Does anyone have any helpful suggestions for the reverse operation, i.e. an > X to curses (or similar) conversion? Obviously, curses cannot cope with all > of X's features, but it would be desirable to implement at least a subset > for non-graphic terminals that can handle curses but not X. Why? How many X applications do you know of that make use of *only* those features that could be provided by the mythical "X for a VT100"? This includes not only *output* capabilities, but *input* capabilities as well. You wouldn't get a mouse or an unencoded keyboard in such a system, for example, except perhaps on very specialized terminals. If people really want to write applications that can move between a "curses" and alphanumeric terminal environment, and an X11-style environment, the easiest solutions would seem to be: 1) Solve this at a higher level - develop a forms package with two implementations, one atop "curses" and one atop X11/Xt or whatever, and implement the application atop this forms package. 2) Run your "curses" application inside an "xterm" window.