Re: TERM question/TOSWIN.

[Julian Coleman <J.D.Coleman@newcastle.ac.uk>]

Katherine L Ellis wrote:
> Why have TW100 and TW52 been created at the first place?
> When tons of other term type already exist.
> 
> Why haven't we changed to true vt100 yet from tw100 if they both are
> so close anyway?

The original Toswin was basically a VT52 emulator (Atari standard, e.g.
the console) but with extensions.  If you wanted to use a termcap/terminfo
program and use the extensions, you needed the TW52 entry.  (A base VT52
is/was a pretty primative terminal).

> Is vt100 that hard to handle from a GEM window?
> What's the advantage of using tw100 over vt100?

Well, tw100 is basically vt100 in a GEM window.  So the answer is no :-)
It's not overly fast though.  

The tw100 termcap or terminfo entry has more features than a lot of vt100
entries (which are lacking features on many systems).  There's not much
difference otherwise.  The colours aren't in the termcap/terminfo anyway,
and that's the main difference.

I originally added the tw100 extensions because of the lack of abilities
of VT52's.  I basically wanted a vt100/102 emulator (I can't remember the
exact difference - VT102 is missing some VT100 features).  I only tested
it against SunOS. NetBSD and a vt100 test suite.  It could well have bugs
- e.g. the scrolling region wasn't correct until after I'd used nvi (the
vi that NetBSD ships with).  Maybe scrolling regions are still broken for
split screens, although I thought I'd fixed them.
 
> Why did TOSWIN new version lose the .mnu files feature? that was a
> great idea and worked pretty damn well.
> I don't get it.

Don't know about this, sorry.

J

PS.  All this applies to tw100 (v 0.93), not Toswin II - as I haven't looked
at that.

-- 
    1024/55A5BC19        0F 3F 62 56 18 10 8B 84  43 8F F4 94 93 37 76 AA

S.E.P.