From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23166 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2015 03:48:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 19655 Received: (qmail 11891 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2015 03:48:21 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_7GiK3gLgx3iv1EwI09IEEA)" X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=X+5rdgje c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jwg7e+C1pu9G5Tm+CahlKw==:117 a=jwg7e+C1pu9G5Tm+CahlKw==:17 a=Hpgzp-inWqAA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=9iDbn-4jx3cA:10 a=cKsnjEOsciEA:10 a=gZbpxnkM3yUA:10 a=Pjl6pVfst2r2TG6anWgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=NpHD17zeERFLcmHPl4UA:9 a=W9QuWtSbrx0BXCKi:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 Message-id: <54A61501.9050603@eastlink.ca> Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 19:48:17 -0800 From: Ray Andrews User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0 To: Kurtis Rader Cc: Zsh Users Subject: Re: print color escapes References: <54A4DF80.7040206@eastlink.ca> <141231223506.ZM26289@torch.brasslantern.com> <54A59EE5.7000601@eastlink.ca> <150101132931.ZM27115@torch.brasslantern.com> <54A5D21F.1090701@eastlink.ca> <54A604FB.2020603@eastlink.ca> In-reply-to: --Boundary_(ID_7GiK3gLgx3iv1EwI09IEEA) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 01/01/2015 06:58 PM, Kurtis Rader wrote: > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Ray Andrews > wrote: > > > > The "hardware terminal" you refer to was itself a computer that > executed code. The only difference between it and the "terminal > emulator" you're likely using today is that the former was embedded in > a piece of hardware with a very narrow function Exactly what I was saying. > The whole point of the ANSI X3.64 standard (as partially implemented > by the DEC VT100) was to implement a vi style of insert versus > control mode. The CSI sequence (ESC [) switched the terminal from > "insert" to "control" mode. And once the control command (e.g., clear > screen) was recognized and acted upon the input mode reverted to "insert". > Yeah, ESC is rather obviously a 'control' mode. What I was thinking is that it would end only at the same ESC code again--a toggle--which would/might make the control codes themselves a bit shorter and sweeter. Or not. Maybe it really is easier to have the codes self terminate. Anyway, that's never going to change of course, but interesting to think about. --Boundary_(ID_7GiK3gLgx3iv1EwI09IEEA)--