Re: "exec .!" filters seeing responses to "query" escape sequences

[Juergen Weigert]

On Aug 08, 08 18:52:53 -0700, Micah Cowan wrote:
> 
> For consistency, one could also consider having screen swallow up
> mouse-tracking responses, and reissue them down only the ttys on which
> requests had been seen.
> 
> But that wouldn't be a general solution, since other term-specific
> query/responses couldn't be caught by Screen, and so would always end up
> at the filter end in any case. So, perhaps I should simply apply your
> patch to obtain a general _and_ consistent solution (if a potentially
> existing-filters-breaking one), and have done with it.
> 
> ...which is why this is a discussion, and not a rant. Feedback, anyone? :)

When I originally implemented filters, the concept was, that everything
should pass through the filter process. 

A filter that relies on some data bypassing the filter, is a bad filter and
should be fixed, IMO.

Filter syntax and semantics are horribly complex, and possibly got quite
broken over time. I haven't used any recently.

        cheers,
                Js.

-- 
 o \  Juergen Weigert      unix-software __/ _=======.=======_     
<V> | address@hidden         creator    __/        _---|____________\/    
 \  |            0179/2069677      __/          (____/            /\
(/) | ____________________________/              _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8