On Aug 08, 08 18:52:53 -0700, Micah Cowan wrote:
>
> For consistency, one could also consider having screen swallow up
> mouse-tracking responses, and reissue them down only the ttys on which
> requests had been seen.
>
> But that wouldn't be a general solution, since other term-specific
> query/responses couldn't be caught by Screen, and so would always end up
> at the filter end in any case. So, perhaps I should simply apply your
> patch to obtain a general _and_ consistent solution (if a potentially
> existing-filters-breaking one), and have done with it.
>
> ...which is why this is a discussion, and not a rant. Feedback, anyone? :)
When I originally implemented filters, the concept was, that everything
should pass through the filter process.
A filter that relies on some data bypassing the filter, is a bad filter and
should be fixed, IMO.
Filter syntax and semantics are horribly complex, and possibly got quite
broken over time. I haven't used any recently.
cheers,
Js.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert unix-software __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] creator __/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0179/2069677 __/ (____/ /\
(/) | ____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
_______________________________________________
screen-users mailing list
screen-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/screen-users
