[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev something wrong with LYNXKEYMAP

From: Henry Nelson
Subject: Re: lynx-dev something wrong with LYNXKEYMAP
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:35:00 +0900 (JST)

> It is *your* environment that is unusual.  You either fix it at the
> right level, or do it at the wrong level and live with the consequences...
> The right place would be terminfo or ~/.lynx-keymaps.  

Well, _I'm_ (not all shell account holders have that luxury was my
point) certainly game because it is much easier to set TERM at login
according to IP than it is to make an alias with a specific -cfg switch
for Lynx.  (I can say nothing constructive about "~/.lynx-keymaps".)

So, since I don't have a "usual" environment to test with, what exactly
IS the right way to set those keys?  Is the following "correct" _for me_:

                kich1=\E[1~, khome=\E[2~, kpp=\E[3~,
                kdch1=\E[4~,  kend=\E[5~, knp=\E[6~,

With this description I get the following output with those keys, and
SEEMS to be what Lynx would want:

                insert ^[[2~  home ^[[1~  pgup ^[[5~
                delete ^[[3~  end  ^[[4~  pgdn ^[[6~

> For most of the rest of the world, the Insert key does *not* generate
> "^[[1~", but "^[[2~", and so on - your emulation seems just completely
That "so on" is nothing I know about, and to be a bit argumentative, 
I bet only a handful of users even on this list would know how to correct
a non-standard situation.

> IIRC you have had problems with this for a long time - has anything
> changed?

The labeling seems to have changed, when I don't know.  I have a 2.8.2rel.1
running, and it seems to have the key descriptions correct, i.e., name and
action correspond, despite my messed up situation.

> There is a more or less universal mapping, based on vt2xx terminals, and
> that's what lynx assumes by default.  It certainly makes more sense than
> assuming *your* non-"standard" environment by default.

Not exactly what I wanted to say.  I'm saying make a _fixed_ description
of the key _name_ (not the sequence it generates) to the Lynx action.
Certainly makes the code simpler (no code needed at all other than hard-coded
text), but for "power users" like yourself it would be inflexible, confining
and static.  What you are doing is "right", no argument there.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]