Antonio Macchi wrote: >>> commands like "ls --color" does not use terminfo capabilities... >> >>> ...use instead fixed strings (without regards about TERMinal) >>> is this a good (and safe) choice too? >> >> IMHO not. Too many assumptions. GNU ls seems to always assume an ANSI >> terminal, regardless which TERM is set. Or did I miss something?
> I have done a little search about how terminals uses "setaf" > a very very long list of terminals uses the same style of capabilities > are maybe the others simply "out-of-date"? No wonder, 'setaf' is "set ANSI foreground" IIRC, dedicated to ANSI terminal control. But yes, you're right, most terminals talk ANSI, at least for the most important codes. And for the same reason some people hardcode the dot or the comma as thousands separator in their code, ignoring locale settings. "Never seen something different." Alone the fact that STDOUT is a terminal, without knowing which terminal it is, isn't a good base for a decision what to send. I remember alot of stupid MS-DOS applications that blindly relied on running ANSI.SYS CON driver - producing screen output that looked like streusel slices. Just my 2ct J.
