From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Implementing image support for kitty terminal Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 11:12:37 -0400 Message-ID: References: <835yhwd3z4.fsf@gnu.org> <88387d9e-3717-fd62-9912-bfd571250033@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36250"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gerd =?windows-1252?Q?M=F6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 09 17:13:43 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oWfhP-00099Q-B4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 17:13:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34680 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWfhN-00009s-0j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 11:13:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41216) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWfgT-0007tS-PQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 11:12:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:53623) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWfgR-0002mJ-Ve; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 11:12:45 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3E50D10010E; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A4C1310002F; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:12:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1662736358; bh=/3WzGwMZEAOIcQbvZzwMBgXh0Aa36ocKknP9sq0O+Ps=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=RZSBtSMI54VAEHblAO0OZLTt2CCY9ualkPopXtqf888eB7oYqnEbfdbQUSsaKgYBe vwSKxmmwAgVB+SYiR6Ygs2vzt3l252YQ1+ItjDhXWc083J/aXt3ytL0HNrmO+nta+w rpPNK7/n8lrT/xSjz5ZS66vbcQSB54tpIu/jniOYYxrLraXgxyUpFq9xO2l6v/U80K 48Vws5sf9vTn+vAhzp5cUmHZFN8EJVtIbW+lBjz/wIUVKT8KgJ1N0oQbA71jvJLsW5 /m3H+xLGf5FqnX8Bz6DSkLA6f+KRznkAasMxgFSfJ80vmC2j+6zUIV/UAnUygtrU48 0Ku08yWHuc/QA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.44.229.252]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E5751206C1; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:12:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <88387d9e-3717-fd62-9912-bfd571250033@gmail.com> ("Gerd =?windows-1252?Q?M=F6llmann=22's?= message of "Fri, 9 Sep 2022 16:27:30 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:295076 Archived-At: >> Also flush out if likely to have more than 1k buffered >> otherwise. I'm told that some telnet connections get >> really screwed by more than 1k output at once. */ [...] > The comment there is also interesting. Looks like some connections don't > like larger buffers, some benefit from it, some don't care. Whatever we do, > it's always wrong :-). Note that the comment dates back to: commit 4588ec205730239596486e8ad4d18d541917199a Author: Jim Blandy Date: Wed Jul 3 12:10:07 1991 +0000 Initial revision so there's a chance it's ... slightly dated? Stefan