From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15941 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2013 01:09:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 32112 Received: (qmail 29433 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2013 01:08:59 -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=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=UCdzpVwAA/QQEal7UqSdjdB3DFlE8xv+xddR2lEof6g=; b=Nckn/wyTBKYhpb3baND1L4aAMqlvsFGQJcW8iDgf9qLYmx+k9GRGCaAORHCD3q6bVw VbrPAkG+wQZNcgWxlRoOTB7ZYVA/UtINIQFe1jqijsUbBKYTpa7g6WV8/5ahDu3BRe+F yFegOuIaWz6eWO4pkiP2unFrQO789NWB6paEm/GsLj4w7OPt/aE1c8VV8sEEzbnPHKwh vQDVGWaBNiTxvcA8bUsDDMxxA61h5E8JkZ9WI3VeuWEiwhuQGbDX0CsYlmk4qMwcSL++ /mOMeSG+MpURr29jt4mqGu4uPmad+9kx01RoC8dHX0yuwn90NDIcfzsi7rCqLUXCGzXK dGcQ== X-Received: by 10.204.165.206 with SMTP id j14mr577868bky.45.1387069736865; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:08:56 -0800 (PST) References: <9CB4226B-47EE-44FA-8F8F-01DF4CB5154D@gmail.com> <131214110830.ZM18442@torch.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <131214110830.ZM18442@torch.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6B994BD8-DF02-4D37-BA1E-C81F2EBCB6C5@gmail.com> Cc: "zsh-workers@zsh.org" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a) From: Patrick Oscity Subject: Re: Bug report Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 02:08:54 +0100 To: Bart Schaefer I have seen the much improved patch by Peter Stephenson and find it to be th= e perfect solution. Thank you guys for the quick reaction and your detailed e= xplanations. You rock! > On 14.12.2013, at 20:08, Bart Schaefer wrote: >=20 > On Dec 14, 7:44pm, Patrick Oscity wrote: > } > } * the right prompt is not right aligned, it is in fact shifted to the= > } left by one character >=20 > This is intentional, because a particular kind of terminal device that > was very widespread a few years ago had a misfeature wherein printing to > the lower right corner character position scrolls the screen up a line. >=20 > Terminal types that have this behavior are not readily identifiable from > terminfo descriptions, and the extra space along the right side was > deemed less annoying than an entire extra line across the bottom (and > corresponding loss of whatever was in the line that scrolled off the > top). >=20 > Worse, there was another common terminal where filling the bottom line > of the screen and then writing a trailing newline would NOT scroll the > display, resulting in e.g. blank lines disappearing from output. >=20 > Much easier than attempting to detect different combinations of this was > to always be sure that the only thing ever written in the lower right > corner *is* a newline, and only when scrolling is wanted. >=20 > Given the number of other prompt-specific setopts we have at this point, > we could potentially add another one to control this, but I think the > default behavior should remain as it is.