From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7686 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2015 02:58:54 -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: 19654 Received: (qmail 28866 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2015 02:58:53 -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 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NbgXWbdYpTzLibBYicAadj22BTxNlpLQnYVB82tn0p4=; b=b/Kl7AcKGWNivWGZG3RkK2NH0S8pNJbJLedNfvqL5HmH5zVdI+JwbeAOIMY+Mcl5Op z00gIJ0JV1SjxCALpW4HotGUG8g3Qwk7ajZtpFCuahoaTQVvsj+Ui/4Be2ejy65Svv5b +jn5+oBSAmwJFruqwNoXKQqetKFfgDK2fyP8azdDAEWg4ZwWSenETNusEvF6vdTiVSvf 9RPo0DXyWs83t5wP0n47NgNEfp9sqh9jFGK5n5G9YhIS8iJPorfZk8bjA9J+bo1PtPRS gEGFW1c6JJUvQLGbc2/k0d+IqiDOwRbcAqex6yKUNj5vtQX0XL4/L6beSNMAIllhiSxC V7CQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnecOJqeE3EEgtAtDfKbhQTtMK3bYPzZE4rUx23+UuPtG+g9ufH5QLRP6mzawvboZIX328U MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.3.100 with SMTP id b4mr71234957lab.68.1420167529810; Thu, 01 Jan 2015 18:58:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54A604FB.2020603@eastlink.ca> 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> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 18:58:49 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: print color escapes From: Kurtis Rader To: Ray Andrews Cc: Zsh Users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149406422e724050ba2855b --089e0149406422e724050ba2855b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Ray Andrews wrote: > > I'm just realizing something that might not be true: In the old days, it > would have been the hardware terminal itself that interpreted these codes, > but now, it's my 'terminal emulator', not the screen itself, which is why > it's called an 'emulator'. Correct? And I can't believe I'm saying this, > but too bad that these control characters are part of the data stream, > there should have been a 'vi' insert vs. control mode. One special char, > and you're in control mode until you toggle out of it again. > 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 whereas the modern terminal emulator (e.g., iTerm2 that I use on Mac OS X) runs on a device with a very broad function. But they both execute programs that recognize specific input sequences and act accordingly (e.g., clearing the "screen"). 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". -- Kurtis Rader Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank --089e0149406422e724050ba2855b--