Re: [dalias@aerifal.cx: ansi-term \e[J causes spurious newline [revised report]]

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

  > Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
  > 
  > > Well, that's a rat hole that I don't think we want to get into.  Not at
  > > this point in the release cycle. If users show that some features are
  > > required by real applications to run correctly, then we can consider
  > > it.
  > 
  > The reporter specifically mentioned busybox command line editing.

Where? The message that I was CCed on only mentioned "echo".

  > We cannot expect embedded systems to rely on termcap/terminfo.
  > Rather they will issue hardcoded VT100 escape sequences - like
  > ESC [ J, and expect the terminal emulator to DTRT...
  > 
  > I've tested the 'echo' example with both xterm and minicom (which I
  > use with embedded systems).  Both behave identically - for ESC [ J
  > and for ESC [ 1 J -- and in accordance with the reporter's expectations
  > for a "true" VT100 terminal.
  > 
  > So you may claim that the behaviour is "undefined" - but practical
  > tests shows "consistent" behaviour, different from what Emacs term
  > does.
  > 
  > IMO, we should fix term to behave like other VT100 emulators.
  > The current behaviour is clearly broken -- besides, fixing this
  > doesn't change the semantics of the only case where it was defined
  > before.

I will look at that after the release. I don't think the proposed fix
is correct and I don't have time to deal with it now.