[Info-vax] VTxxx/VMS term driver: bug or feature?

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <W75R8kxItmfA at eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>In article <00AB1B94.1FA197E0 at SendSpamHere.ORG>,   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>> 
>> Initially, I would have thought that the local nowrap, terminal driver
>> /WRAP combination should have appears the same.  Strangely enough, the
>> terminal emulator I was checking didn't show this.  While testing it,
>> I was performing the same tests on 2 VT terminals (VT220 and VT525, as
>> well as, a DECterm).  I was simple taken aback when I saw differences
>> that were shown on the VTs and DECterm but not this terminal emulator.
>> I am, of course, convinced now that the terminal emulator got it flat
>> out wrong.
>
>   After further investigation, I decided to try the other two
>   combinations:  local nowrap and driver /NOWRAP, local wrap
>   and driver /WRAP.  In doing so, I reduced the line separation to try
>   to fit everything on one screen.
>
>   The results are much different, in comaring DEC VTSTAR to PuTTY's
>   emulation. I haven't tried it on anything else yet.

Right.

When using real VT terminals, the result with the /WRAP and no local wrap
shows that the terminal driver doesn't have knowledge of where the string
of digits begins.  The terminal driver could, however, know if it issued
a CPR but that's _NOT_ what's at issue here.  The issue is whether or not
these real VT results should be expected on the VT terminal emulators.  I
am going to say that they should reproduce these results IF they were true
VT emulations.  I'd conclude from my testing of several emulators is that
they've all got it wrong.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.