wmb@sun.uucp (Mitch Bradley) (09/07/85)
Here's a termcap entry for Sun's that improves the redisplay for gnu emacs (for Gosling's emacs too, if you're running with an rlogin instead of on the machine with the bitmap). The idea is that "insert line" is expensive on a bitmap, so you might as well just repaint the lines. This termcap entry just disables the insert-character and insert-line capabilities. M-|sun-nal|Sun Microsystems Workstation console without insert line:\ :ic@:im@:ei@:al@:tc=sun: Mitch Bradley
jpn@teddy.UUCP (09/19/85)
In article <2766@sun.uucp> wmb@sun.uucp (Mitch Bradley) writes: > >Here's a termcap entry for Sun's that improves the >redisplay for gnu emacs (for Gosling's emacs too, if you're >running with an rlogin instead of on the machine with the bitmap). >The idea is that "insert line" is expensive on a bitmap, so you >might as well just repaint the lines. This termcap entry just >disables the insert-character and insert-line capabilities. NO! This is the WRONG APPROACH. It is much more expensive to redraw the whole screen than to insert a line to perform a scroll-reverse. The worst performance is seen when scrolling multiple lines: the standard SUN termcap specifies that scrolling must be one line at a time. If you add the multi-line add/delete line sequences, the performance of GNU emacs, gosling emacs (non-bitmap) and vi all improve substantially in many common situations. An unrelated improvement to performance might be gained by adding delays to the insert sequences: This would indicate to the editor that these sequences are expensive to use, and should be avoided except when large changes are being made. I have not actually tried this yet. My termcap for sun (note the addition of AL/DL/IC/DC sequences): Mu|sun|Sun Microsystems Workstation console:\ :li#34:co#80:cl=^L:cm=\E[%i%d;%dH:nd=\E[C:up=\E[A:\ :ce=\E[K:cd=\E[J:so=\E[7m:se=\E[m:rs=\E[s:am:bs:km:ms:pt:\ :kd=\E[B:kl=\E[D:ku=\E[A:kr=\E[C:kh=\E[H:\ :al=\E[L:dl=\E[M:im=:ei=:ic=\E[@:dc=\E[P:\ :AL=\E[%dL:DL=\E[%dM:IC=\E[%d@:DC=\E[%dP:
hans@erisun.UUCP (Hans Albertson) (09/26/85)
Oh, dear, I've done it again....
the SUN TERMCAP(5) entry says " give :im=: if ic" and
"give :ei=: if ic" .... Sigh.
Tcsh gets confused if you do this.
Maybe curses wants it this way, right along with vi?
The difficulty of course lies in that termcap is a set of
conventions, and programs using it take full responsibility for
actually using termcap correctly.
Sorry for the confusion.
--
Hans Albertsson, USENET/uucp: {decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
Real World: TeleLOGIC AB, Box 1001, S-14901 Nynashamn,SWEDENjpn@teddy.UUCP (09/27/85)
In article <301@log-hb.UUCP> hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) writes: > >> :al=\E[L:dl=\E[M:im=:ei=:ic=\E[@:dc=\E[P:\ > NOTE!!!------------------^----^ This is WRONG... > >This ENABLES the im and ei functions, assigning the null string to both. >Which is probably NOT what you want. >Disabling im and ei should instead be done as follows: > :al=\E[L:dl=\E[M:im@:ei@:ic=\E[@:dc=\E[P:\ >according to my TERMCAP(5) manual entry, at least. Both on SUN OS 2.0 >and 4.2 BSD. Trying both shows clearly that this is indeed so. Excuse me, but you are incorrect. RTFM!!!!!!! I am especially annoyed because you site the man page. You site it INCORRECTLY!!!! From the list of capabilities from Termcap(5) BSD4.2 (it is the same on Sun Version 2, also): ei str End insert mode; give ":ei=:" if ic im str Insert mode (enter); give ":im=:" if ic I assume the reasoning is that this allows programs to be written that follow a single algothim that works with all terminals that have insert capability. Whether this is the best approach or not is irrelevent: This is the way it is documented to work! I have written a fictional example: puts(IM); /* use insert mode if possible */ for (i = 0; i < strlen(data); ++i) puts(IC); /* insert one char at a time if necessary */ puts(data); /* insert data */ puts(EI); /* exit insert mode if used */
hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (10/01/85)
In article <1324@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: > >My termcap for sun (note the addition of AL/DL/IC/DC sequences): > >Mu|sun|Sun Microsystems Workstation console:\ > :li#34:co#80:cl=^L:cm=\E[%i%d;%dH:nd=\E[C:up=\E[A:\ > :ce=\E[K:cd=\E[J:so=\E[7m:se=\E[m:rs=\E[s:am:bs:km:ms:pt:\ > :kd=\E[B:kl=\E[D:ku=\E[A:kr=\E[C:kh=\E[H:\ > :al=\E[L:dl=\E[M:im=:ei=:ic=\E[@:dc=\E[P:\ NOTE!!!------------------^----^ This is WRONG... > :AL=\E[%dL:DL=\E[%dM:IC=\E[%d@:DC=\E[%dP: This ENABLES the im and ei functions, assigning the null string to both. Which is probably NOT what you want. Disabling im and ei should instead be done as follows: :al=\E[L:dl=\E[M:im@:ei@:ic=\E[@:dc=\E[P:\ according to my TERMCAP(5) manual entry, at least. Both on SUN OS 2.0 and 4.2 BSD. Trying both shows clearly that this is indeed so. BTW, what version of Gosmacs actually USES AL-DC via TrmTerm.c? Mine sure doesn't... -- Hans Albertsson, USENET/uucp: {decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans ....!erix!erisun!hans Real World: ERICSSON Information Systems,Sundbyberg,SWEDEN
hansen@pegasus.UUCP (Tony L. Hansen) (10/10/85)
< > < >> :al=\E[L:dl=\E[M:im=:ei=:ic=\E[@:dc=\E[P:\ < > NOTE!!!------------------^----^ This is WRONG... < > < >This ENABLES the im and ei functions, assigning the null string to both. < >Which is probably NOT what you want. < >Disabling im and ei should instead be done as follows: < > :al=\E[L:dl=\E[M:im@:ei@:ic=\E[@:dc=\E[P:\ < < From the list of capabilities from Termcap(5) BSD4.2 (it is the same on < Sun Version 2, also): < < ei str End insert mode; give ":ei=:" if ic < im str Insert mode (enter); give ":im=:" if ic < Actually, in this case I've always considered the termcap manual page to be plain wrong. Current usage of both termcap and terminfo, in curses, for example, assumes that ei and im are only defined if they really have some meaning. The same statement can be made for all string variables. Tony Hansen ihnp4!pegasus!hansen