From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin C.Atkins To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Drawterm and Inferno? Was: [9fans] fortune-worthy Message-Id: <20031219090231.086ab039.martin@parvat.com> In-Reply-To: <577fd0c726f326714323074c32cead74@centurytel.net> References: <577fd0c726f326714323074c32cead74@centurytel.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:02:31 +0530 Topicbox-Message-UUID: ab47e430-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:56 -0800 "Skip Tavakkolian" wrote: > Isn't this an argument for stronger drawterm effort (or something > more ambitious)? This is probably a silly thought, since I haven't researched it, but... Given the recent changes to Inferno (fileserving, graphics, etc), would it not be relatively easy (or at least, easier than it was) to rewrite drawterm in limbo? The advantages are obvious - a single drawterm binary would work identically on all the platforms supported by Inferno! Martin -- Martin C. Atkins martin@parvat.com Parvat Infotech Private Limited http://www.parvat.com{/,/martin}