From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:30:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: old archived termios submission
Message-ID: <3B25001A.18075.735B29@localhost>
References: <3B23A7E9 DOT 663 DOT 2BC22F AT localhost>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010611110853.17383A@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> More importantly, all this seems excessive to me: why not just have a
> table with an escape sequence for each extended key we want to
> support, and be done with it?

I think "trans_mapping_chras_at" is that table. It's used by 
"__direct_check_extened_keystroke_at" on the scan code. But it does seem (at 
first glance) to be more complicated than it needs to be and hard to follow.

(and btw, the spelling of the symbols is correct.)

And what encoding for the extended keys should be used? The one used by Bash 
has been in use for a while now. Should we use it or design a new one?