[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:56:42 +0300

> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:25:15 -0700
> 1. TERM=xterm   
> (fboundp 'xterm-initialize-terminal) is t, so it is  called.
> 2. TERM=xterm-256color 
> (fboundp 'xterm-256color-initialize-terminal) is false
> now we truncate the "xterm-256color" name to "xterm", 
> (fboundp 'xterm-initialize-terminal) is to, so it is called.
> 3. TERM=somenewterminal
> (fboundp 'somenewterminal-initialize-terminal) does not exist, nor can
> the name "somenewterminal" be truncated so that the corresponding
> function can be called.
> The main idea behind this is to move the terminal initialization to a
> function, instead of being performed because the term/*.el files have
> forms at the top level that are evaluated when the file is loaded.

I'm still not sure what are you saying.  Where do you suggest to move
those top-level forms, and what would be the mechanism to evaluate

I mean, I understand the principles and don't need to be convinced in
their usefulness, I just want to understand what are your specific

A test for an autoloaded function being fboundp will always yield t,
so I think it's useless to check fboundp as an instrument of
distinguishing between terminal types.  And yet you did use fboundp in
your original message.

reply via email to

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