TERMINFO to TERMCAP conversion.

[Daniel R. Levy]

In article <OHT2AIAxds13 at ficc.uu.net>, peter at ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > The database parsing issue is the one thing I don't see how you could
> > fix using compatible extensions to termcap.
> 
> Set up an index file, that you rehash whenever you change it. This is a
> solved problem.

And if the sysadmin ever forgets to rehash after a termcap edit...
curses programs all of a sudden start going BOOM.  Well okay, with
a little smarts, the programs could default to reading the termcap
the old sequential way, if they find the index file is older than
the termcap or if they don't see the expected termcap data when they
look using the index data.  Or they could start up a setuid program
which does the reindexing automatically.  Nice thing about using an
index file instead of, say, busting up the termcap into lots of little
files a la terminfo is that older programs could still use the single
termcap file without change... except for ONE issue:

> > 	- the 2-letter capability names are getting quite strained
> 
> My own implementation of termcap for CP/M didn't have this limitation.
> This could have been an evolutionary change.

Can all older termcap-using programs handle termcaps with more than 2-letter
capability names (I mean, safely ignore those capabilities)?  Or do they barf?
There's the backwards-compatibility issue to consider.  Better to make a
clearly backwards-incompatible revolutionary change a la terminfo, IMO, than
to come up with a system which may or may not support an older application
and may cause the older application fall down on you unexpectedly.

>From what I hear (from the Horse's Mouth, dmr), the current Research UNIX
system doesn't support terminfo anyhow.
-- 
Daniel R. Levy                        >>> God: just say "yes" <<<
AT&T Bell Laboratories        UNIX(R) mail:  att!ttbcad!levy, att!cbnewsc!levy
1000 East Warrenville Rd.     Any opinions expressed in the message above are
Naperville, Illinois  60566   mine, and not necessarily AT&T's.