Hi,
> That's not what I'm talking about. Of course a tone of terminals have
> smkx defined, but fish currently doesn't send it and works on (as far as
> I know) anything but st.
>
> In other words:
>
> If you launch fish in { konsole, xterm, gnome-terminal, linux in-kernel
> VTs, iTerm2, ... } your keys work, without smkx.
Wrong again:
xterm (debian testing):
$ tput rmkx
^[[F (End key)
^[[H (Home key)
$ tput smkx
^[OF (End key)
^[OH (Home key)
> > The question here is, why do you want to write a shell knowing
> > it has bugs and it will not be able of running in all the possible
> > (current or future) terminals?
>
> The only term I currently know of that has a problem with fish is st.
Did you test all the terminals in the terminfo definition?
There are near of 400 terminals. Maybe you don't care and you think
terminals is an obsolete part of the unix world, and maybe you are
right, but then you should think why you are writing a shell. You
can try with something like Unity shell which has no historical
baggage. But if you write an Unix terminal application you have to
follow the terminfo definition, and it clearly says what you have
to do.
You can say all the times that works in the 5 or 7 terminals
you have tested, that I can find dozen of terminals where it will not
work. I can say you that your shell will not work in a real vt220
terminal, for example.
Regards,
