[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Q: why doesn't putty have smkx/rmkx?

From: Thomas Dickey
Subject: Re: Q: why doesn't putty have smkx/rmkx?
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:59:10 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 02:47:53PM +0100, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel wrote:
> On 16/01/2016 23:59, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > "bash-users" is the explanation for the "linux" entry lacking application
> > mode, of course.  I added "xterm-noapp" a while back, to see if I could
> > pry those away from hardcoded escapes in .inputrc, but had no measurable
> > success.
> That is interesting: I thought that the Linux console did not support
> application mode and that is why it was not in terminfo. I will try some
> Googling to find out the backstory (just to satisfy my own curiosity).

"man console_codes" shows the escape sequences:

       ESC >     DECPNM   Set numeric keypad mode
       ESC =     DECPAM   Set application keypad mode

> > I can do that for putty: move the existing definition to "putty-noapp"
> > and amend "putty" to use application mode.  (I think it's too late for
> > "linux-noapp").  It's probably not a huge impact, due to PuTTY's insisting
> > on setting TERM to "xterm".
> Thanks, that is great.
> PuTTY at least allows me to set TERM to any value; that's much better
> than OS X Terminal.app (which only allows choosing between a predefined
> set of candidates) and GNOME Terminal & friends (which hardcode TERM to
> xterm with no way of overriding it that I know of).
> P.S.: I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but why is it too late for
> "linux-noapp"?

well... for the people that don't use literal strings in .inputrc, there
are the ones who simply use things like this in their scripts

        foo=$(tput kcud1)

I made some comments about this here:


Thomas E. Dickey <address@hidden>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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