or do you know of anyone doing that? specifically, the vt100 has the
PF1 through PF4 keys, which transmit '^[O' followed by either P through
S. conserver uses P through S as alternate keys for certain sequences,
assuming someone might set the escape sequence to '^[O' and then hit PF1
through PF4.
if what i just said makes you think "heck no, doesn't sound like
anything i/we do" then you can skip to the last paragraph or just delete
this and go on with life.
now, the only real "easy" way of using this would be to either alias the
console command to 'console -e '^[O' "$@"' or override the defaults when
you build conserver...but, even if you do, does anyone use a vt100 any
more...well, specifically, the PF* keys?
yeah, i've used ascii terminals in computer rooms before (for when
things get really bad), but i've never tried emulating a vt100 and
sending the PF* keys. '^Ec' is just too easy for me to type.
i was also thinking folks might be using an xterm (or some such) and
defining keys to send PF* sequences. but, if you're doing that, why not
just define them to send '^Ec' sequences instead...unless it's built-in
and you're counting on it (but you still have to override the escape
sequence).
so, those are my thoughts. what i'd like to do is remove the checks for
keys P through S and (potentially) reuse them for other functions. but,
if there are folks actually counting on the old PF* keys, i'd like to
talk to you. if i don't hear anything from anyone, i'll assume no one
is using this bit of mostly-undocumented code.
Bryan
PF1 through PF4 keys, which transmit '^[O' followed by either P through
S. conserver uses P through S as alternate keys for certain sequences,
assuming someone might set the escape sequence to '^[O' and then hit PF1
through PF4.
if what i just said makes you think "heck no, doesn't sound like
anything i/we do" then you can skip to the last paragraph or just delete
this and go on with life.
now, the only real "easy" way of using this would be to either alias the
console command to 'console -e '^[O' "$@"' or override the defaults when
you build conserver...but, even if you do, does anyone use a vt100 any
more...well, specifically, the PF* keys?
yeah, i've used ascii terminals in computer rooms before (for when
things get really bad), but i've never tried emulating a vt100 and
sending the PF* keys. '^Ec' is just too easy for me to type.
i was also thinking folks might be using an xterm (or some such) and
defining keys to send PF* sequences. but, if you're doing that, why not
just define them to send '^Ec' sequences instead...unless it's built-in
and you're counting on it (but you still have to override the escape
sequence).
so, those are my thoughts. what i'd like to do is remove the checks for
keys P through S and (potentially) reuse them for other functions. but,
if there are folks actually counting on the old PF* keys, i'd like to
talk to you. if i don't hear anything from anyone, i'll assume no one
is using this bit of mostly-undocumented code.
Bryan