steiner@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Dave Steiner) (11/22/86)
Does anybody know a way to run a process (or shell) under GNUemacs but
not as a window. I want to be able to run a program (namely ispell)
which uses curses quite a bit and therefore doesn't work so good in a
window. I can't seem to find any functions that will let me do this
sort of thing.
thanks,
ds
--
uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!steiner
arpa: Steiner@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU or Steiner@RUTGERS.ARPA jbs@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) (11/22/86)
steiner@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Dave Steiner) writes: >[...][How does one ]run a process [...] under GNUemacs but >not as a window. Look in EMACSLIB/lisp/time.el >I want to [...] run [...] ispell >which uses curses [...] and therefore doesn't work [...]. Take a look at the -a option to ispell. It is designed to make interfaces like the one you describe easier to write. Jeff Siegal
jr@CC5.BBN.COM.UUCP (11/22/86)
This doesn't really answer Dave's query, but I have often mused about
a sort of "inverse curses" package, if you will, that will take a
{file, region, pipe, whatever} and interpret what comes through it as
though it were some particular terminal, with the result being the
final appearance you would have on your screen had you fed the
{whatever} to the terminal in question (I know this is fuzzy - it's
been a tough week).
The time when I really want it is when a LUSER has typed a message
with a dumb unix tty interface which happily echoes character sequences
from the arrow keys; the user moves the cursor around (and it just
moves because of the echoes) and edits the file as though talking to
an editor. But when I read it with a real editor, of course I see all
the ^[[A and so on, and cannot make head nor tail of what the user
thought the message should be. If I could run through the uncurse
and drop the result in the buffer, I would see their intent. (Gee,
that's a catchy name, eh?)
This filter is especially valuable if the terminal you are reading on
uses different escape sequences than the sender's (ie, when even
dropping to shell and cat'ing the file won't help).
Has anyone ever heard of such a beast (I know it may not be the right
group for this message, but as I said, my head is too fuzzy to try to
post elsewhere right now)?
/jr
jr@cc5.bbn.com or jr@bbnccv.uucphymie@dvm.UUCP (11/27/86)
In article <8611220524.AA04844@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> jr@CC5.BBN.COM (John Robinson) writes: >This doesn't really answer Dave's query, but I have often mused about >a sort of "inverse curses" package, if you will, that will take a >{file, region, pipe, whatever} and interpret what comes through it as >though it were some particular terminal, with the result being the >final appearance you would have on your screen had you fed the >{whatever} to the terminal in question (I know this is fuzzy - it's >been a tough week). > >Has anyone ever heard of such a beast (I know it may not be the right >group for this message, but as I said, my head is too fuzzy to try to >post elsewhere right now)? > >/jr >jr@cc5.bbn.com or jr@bbnccv.uucp What this amounts to is a terminal emulator. This is certainly not difficult to do, as witness all of those available on PCs. What I would this most useful for is shell mode. I would be able to run vi, or rogue, or hack in a window and have the appropriate display. And most usefule of all, I could be running these programs on another machine that I have connected to via tip or kermit. Anyway, these being my applications, I don't need a mode that emulates a specific terminal. I would be happy enough to make a "gnu" entry in my termcap (or terminfo) file for special sequences that emacs would handle. -- - Hymie ...{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!allegra!phri!orville!dvm!hymie