| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 602.1 | bypass DECterm and it's there (for GNU EMACS) | HIT::GLASER | Steve Glaser DTN 237-2586 SHR1-3/E29 | Fri Apr 14 1989 19:14 | 21 |
| GNU Emacs can talk directly to X, bypassing DECterm. In that
environment, it treats META (aka Symbol or Compose or Alt) as an extra
"shift" key. You can bind functions to different keys and META is a
modifier on the key.
There are versions of GNU that work on VMS DECwindoes listed in
the GNU notesfile (AITG::GNU).
Unfortunately, due to bugs in the Ultrix X Server and/or XLib in UWS
2.0, GNU doesn't work properly in that environment. If you rin
the MIR X11R3 stuff, you're ok though.
If you're asking what should DECterm do to support EMACS META key
functionality, then answer is any of (1) nothing, use X directly it's
*much* better and faster, (2) prefix with ``ESC'' (this is what GNU
wants on most terminals), or (3) add the top bit (some real terminals
do this, particularly those sold to the Internet community [HDS/Concept
and Ann Arbor Ambassador come to mind here].
Steveg
|
| 602.2 | Not a problem | DDIF::TANNENBAUM | TPU Developer | Fri Apr 14 1989 22:48 | 14 |
| "Meta" is an artifact of a nine-bit byte environment. The EMACS' that
I've seen (particularly Barry Scott's VAX EMACS, which is derived from
the same parent as Unipress EMACS) will accept an <ESC> as a prefix for
"meta".
The only thing that DECterm can or should do for "meta" is send a
<ESC>. Anything else (such as "set the high bit") will conflict with
the Latin-1 character set.
On the Customize/Keyboard menu, you can cause DECterm to send an <ESC>
instead of the "~". This should be sufficient for most EMACS users.
- Barry
|
| 602.3 | Tnx | DECWIN::FISHER | Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO3-4/W23 | Mon Apr 17 1989 11:37 | 4 |
| Great...thanks to both of you for the info.
Burns
|
| 602.6 | | VWSENG::KLEINSORGE | Toys 'R' Us | Mon Apr 24 1989 09:17 | 8 |
|
Re: .4
Is it wise to put functional specs for a (as-yet) non-existant terminal
(or for that matter *any* functional spec) into a general distribution
notesfile?
|
| 602.7 | maybe | XANADU::FLEISCHER | Bob 381-0895 ZKO3-2/T63 | Mon Apr 24 1989 17:22 | 8 |
| re Note 602.6 by VWSENG::KLEINSORGE:
> Is it wise to put functional specs for a (as-yet) non-existant terminal
> (or for that matter *any* functional spec) into a general distribution
> notesfile?
Perhaps. It depends.
|
| 602.8 | I should have thought of that | HANNAH::MESSENGER | Bob Messenger | Mon Apr 24 1989 17:53 | 8 |
| Re: .6, .7
In this case the answer is "no". Thanks for pointing this out, Fred. My
brain was in neutral Sunday afternoon (since I hadn't slept since Saturday
morning...).
-- Bob
|
| 602.9 | Note 602.4 has been deleted. | IO::MCCARTNEY | James T. McCartney III - DTN 381-2244 ZK02-2/N24 | Mon Apr 24 1989 22:53 | 10 |
|
Bob contacted me directly regarding the note. I agree that it is best that this
not be posted here and agreed to delete the note. My reasoning for originally
posting the information was in the interest of bettering our products. I was
under the (mis-)assumption that the spec was generally public.
Regret any problem this may have caused.
James
|