Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!urbsdc!aglew From: aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM Newsgroups: comp.sources.bugs Subject: Re: tset (BSD?) Message-ID: <34000001@urbsdc> Date: 7 May 88 21:56:00 GMT References: <8776@sol.ARPA> Lines: 25 Nf-ID: #R:sol.ARPA:8776:urbsdc:34000001:000:1295 Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew May 7 16:56:00 1988 >For terminals, I think that all of the flavors of Unix have been going >about key function binding all wrong. Unix should not bind keys to >functions, but rather functions to keys: have a per-character table, >each entry of which tells the tty driver which function to run for that >key. (Sound like Emacs?) Among other things this would be faster, >because the driver would not have to search through a list of 7-14 (or >so) functions for each key. > >Now this would require more memory per tty (like 256 bytes), but then >again most Unixes are runing on machines that are somewhat bigger than >PDP-11s... If I remember correctly Mike "der Mouse" Parker at McGill has done this. I think that it takes 512 bytes - it's nice to be able to store flags for special actions like erase, etc. Mouse, d'you read this newsgroup? Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801 aglew@gould.com - preferred, if you have MX records aglew@xenurus.gould.com - if you don't ...!ihnp4!uiucuxc!ccvaxa!aglew - paths may still be the only way My opinions are my own, and are not the opinions of my employer, or any other organisation. I indicate my company only so that the reader may account for any possible bias I may have towards our products.