Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

definitions again (Developers)

posted by kerravon, Ligao, Free World North, 22.04.2024, 02:48

> > #define ESC_STRING "\x1b"
> >
> Definitively NO. There is no reason *ever* to have a C90 program output
> ESC_CHAR.
It's not a C90 program. It's an ANSI X3.64 program.
THAT is the standard (plus C90).

> What you have probably in mind is something similar to
>
>   switch (terminal_detected())
> {
> case VT_100:
> cursor_up_string = "\x1b[A";
> cursor_down_string = "\x1b[B";
> cursor_left_string = "\x1b[A";
> break;
>
> case EBCDIC_ANSI_X3.64:
> cursor_up_string = "\x27(J";
> ...
>

If you're doing this, then probably "curses" would
be more appropriate to be made a standard.

That's a job for another day.

For now I just want to support ANSI 3.64.

> > rather than burdening the compiler to recognize '\e' or whatever.
> if your compiler is burdened by this, change compiler.
Microsoft C 6.0 was the last version to run on an 8086.
And thus on my Book 8088 (both of them).

I also have a legal copy of Borland C++ 3.1 I think it is.

Which of those either already support \e or can be updated
to support \e?

I'm in the "Dos Ain't Dead" forum for a reason.

> the idea that a single person could set a standard is hilarious.
I'm not? That's why I've been discussing this here for years.
I mentioned "BTTR standard a few days ago".

Regardless, sometimes single people do set standards.
The MZ header starts with MZ because of one guy.
MSDOS 1.0 complied to Kildall's standard.

> the idea that YOU could set a standard is more sad than hilarious.
Whatever dude.

There's not a lot of competition in the DOS world anyway.
Even less in the PDOS world.

BFN. Paul.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 54 users online (0 registered, 54 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum