On 2018-07-06, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > Yeah, we seem to have a recurrent problem with terminals pretending to be > xterm > and failing. Anything to eliminate the "false positives" (i.e. the > not-really-compatibles) would be welcome. This iterm2 even pretends to be > xterm > patch 95, but its "third parameter" is absent rather than zero. FWIW, in a > "real" xterm, and a reasonably modern one, I get v:termresponse = > ^[[>41;330;0c > (I wonder what the 41 means — the help says it should be 0 for vt100 and 1 for > vt220. Could it be because it is nearly maximized, with the Vim running in it > seeing 202 columns x 72 lines?)
I have in my notes that 41 means the terminal type is VT420, but my notes don't include a citation. I did find a couple of places in the xterm 318 source code where "41" is paired with a comment about VT420. My xterm 318 includes the 41 whether it is maximized or just 80x24. Regards, Gary -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
