Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
- From: blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Sep 2007 18:55:02 GMT
In article <1190377413.447598.150170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<nebulous99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:36 am, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Apparently the people who
write these emulator programs don't mind providing features not
possible with the hardware they claim to be emulating. <shrug>
In other words, they cheated. :)
Define "cheating" in this context.
The more I think about it, the more I think modern "terminal
emulator" programs probably don't claim to be emulating any
particular form of antique hardware. I mean, the terminal type
for the GNOME one is "xterm" and not "vt100". Was there ever
hardware corresponding to the "xterm" terminal type? I'm not sure,
but I'm inclined to think not, or that if there was, it was an
"X terminal" that would provide features well beyond those of
the text terminals of days gone by.
As far as I know, vim and other text-mode programs are designed
to run correctly in a variety of terminal environments and take
advantage of whatever features are provided by the current
environment (e.g., reverse video, underlining). That they
can also make use of a terminal emulator's ability to display
glyphs[*] that couldn't be displayed on one of those plain-text
consoles of days past to me seems like a logical extension of this
ability to use different kinds of terminals. Is that "cheating"?
whatever you mean by that ....
Putting this sort of support in a text console app/emulator/both is
like putting an altimeter, radar, GPS, and OnStar navigation
technology, and sixty thousand dials and switches into a steam
locomotive and structuring the thing's engine so it will still
function at 30,000 feet and supersonic speeds, even though the only
way it's getting anywhere near either is if you pilot it directly into
a tornado. :P
(What a queer mix of primitive and advanced technology!)
Your analogy sure is. I don't quite get how the analogy applies
to vim, but maybe that just means I lack the right kind of
imagination.
[*] I think that's the word I want -- something that includes
characters from different alphabets, non-alphabetic symbols, etc.
It is.
Good to have that confirmed; thanks.
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
- From: nebulous99
- Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
- From: blmblm
- Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
- From: nebulous99
- Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
- Prev by Date: Re: Great SWT Program
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
