On 2006-04-12, jpd wrote: > Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 2006-04-12, Chris F.A. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> These days, the ISO-6429 standard (almost the same as the older >> ANSI x3.64) is so close to universal that I don't bother writing >> for anything else any more. > > Oh, wonderful. ``All the world's a vax^W^WISO-6429 compatible'' all over > again. > >> If the need arises, I'll do it, but it will be simple to do, and >> much faster (both in coding and script execution) than trying to >> accommodate all terminals from the start. > > Yes, why use a perfectly good abstraction when you can hardcode stuff.
If it were perfectly good, there would be no question; however, it's not. >> I still have a system which does not have tput. > > And that justifies everything else. Of course. If I want to write portable scripts, then yes, it does. -- Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any, A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the 2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list