I saw you applied the 1015 patch but I didn't see you coming up with 1006. I'm looking at it right now.
Could you please tell whether "^[[<" is a unique prefix that is used only for mouse reporting, and hence it can even be put in terminfo descriptions next to "^[[M"? If it's the case then I'm super glad. If not, I'll propose coming up with a 4th (arghhh) extension...
The story is: I tried to patch support to some applications. MC and Joe already done; I was studying someone else's patch to Vim; and I also looked at Emacs. My experience is:
Most of these applications only handle incoming escapes that don't have any parameters, mouse being the only exception. Their parsing code looks up a table or tree to recognize the escape and then they immediately know what escape they're facing. This table or tree contains "^[[M" for mouse. If this one is found, the escape lookup part has already done its job and the code responsible for handling mouse events simply reads three more bytes.
Current urxvt extension needs a completely different parsing logic, which means that for both MC and Joe my patch is extremely ugly: it handles 1015 mode as a special case.
For emacs I couldn't solve the problem (I could solve it with utterly ugly hacks), since the first part (recognizing the common mouse prefix) happens in C, while the second part (reading the coordinates and taking action) are in Lisp. For implementing the 1015 mode I'd have to cross this boundary in terrible ways.
So the conclusion is: A unique prefix that's used solely for reporting extended mouse coordinates makes it very easy to add support to existing applications. The lack thereof might make it extremely hard.
I'd like to see an extension that fulfills this criterium, and I would also prefer rxvt-unicode's developer to say OK to this (I don't want him to say it's broken and come up with yet another one...) If these two are done, I'd be happy to duplicate all my work so far, and push terminal emulators and applications towards implementing 1006.
thanks a lot,
egmont
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 02:57, Thomas Dickey [via VIM] <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Jan 21, 11:19 am, Bram Moolenaar <[hidden email]> wrote:> >http://www.midnight-commander.org/ticket/2662-- please see that, and of
> Egmont Koblinger wrote:
> > I think all your technical questions are answered in the first comment of> > course feel free to ask if you have any more questions.yes - in discussing this with Egmont a few months ago, I pointed out
>
> Thanks, that helps. However, it appears that the "second new extension"
> is not actually supported by xterm yet. Did Thomas Dickey say something
> about this?
some
technical deficiencies with the 1015 code, and also noted a problem
with urvt's
implementation of 1005 (if the locale encoding isn't UTF-8, it won't
report positions
past 50x95).
I followed up by implementing a 1006 which lacks the defects that I
noted in urxvt's design.
Those points are summarized in the change-log for #277, as well as in
ctlseqs.
http://invisible-island.net/xterm/xterm.log.html#xterm_277
http://invisible-island.net/xterm/ctlseqs/ctlseqs.html
(Actually I made these changes at the beginning of December, but other
work
got in the way of a more rapid update- hence the late release for
vttest to
demonstrate the feature).
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
http://vim.1045645.n5.nabble.com/Fwd-Mouse-reporting-and-new-standards-tp3378370p5163573.htmlIf you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
View this message in context: Re: Fwd: Mouse reporting and new standards
Sent from the Vim - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
No comments:
Post a Comment