Re: behavior differences compared to SUSv2

[Thomas Dickey]

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Stew Benedict wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I'm working on the LSB project, and we have a bug filed on the
> specification, with regards to the behavior of keyname() function.
>
> http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1604
...
> Thoughts? Is this the intended ncurses behavior? Should LSB point to the
> ncurses behavior or at least describe the difference from SUSv2 in the
> spec?

Call it a bug (a detail where for instance Solaris curses did not document 
it, and was overlooked when making changes for X/Open).  But now (since 
SUSv2 is vague), I have to see if the codes 128-255 have to be displayed 
as "UNKNOWN KEY" or a "Visible character".  In particular, control 
characters in 128-159 are a problem.

--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net