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

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Johnny Billquist wrote 2011-07-05 18:58:
> On 2011-07-05 18.45, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote 2011-07-05 16:26:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Now, emulators have been there for, say, 20+ years.
>> I have a hard time thinking this is a *real* problem
>> if the emululators still works as they do ("wrong" in
>> your opinion). If this was a real problem, I would have
>> expected this to be "fixed" long ago.
>>
>> What is the real-life example where this is an issue ?
>
> Yes, the bugs have been around for a long time in the emulators. And as I
> mentioned before, talking to the persons writing putty, they have been
> notified of some problems, but they choose to continue to be buggy.
>

And does it realy matter ? That is, for others
then those writing emulator test scripts ?