[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: curses
- From: Reuben Thomas <rrt@...>
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:27:40 +0100
2009/9/8 Juris Kalnins <email@example.com>:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:50:14 +0300, Reuben Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I'm currently rewriting GNU Zile (a lightweight Emacs clone) in Lua,
>> so I need curses support.
> You may consider doing it without curses. That library is worthy of it's
Not in my experience. I've tried with termcap before, but simply ended
up hitting problems that curses has already fixed. Curses is also
standardized in POSIX-2001.
> There is big enough subset of ANSI escape sequences that is well
> supported by all current terminals.
That's nice in theory, but "a big enough subset" is not a documented
standard (though I see that it is documented at least to some degree).
> Terminal emulation bugs are often easy to work around without adding
> specific cases to the code.
And with curses I don't have to.
> See http://vt100.net and http://www.xfree86.org/current/ctlseqs.html
> for good reference.
Thanks, but with curses I can spend my time writing the application
rather than the terminal interaction. As far as I'm concerned, this is
already a solved problem. (Plus the fact that ncurses's maintainer is
Belief marks the line at which our thinking stops (Carse)