Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cal-unix!umcp-cs!chris From: chris@umcp-cs Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Re: terminal driver innards Message-ID: <8101@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 11-Aug-84 22:45:53 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.8101 Posted: Sat Aug 11 22:45:53 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Aug-84 00:59:55 EDT References: <12243@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 23 The fancy BaudFactor calculation was just one that happened to work well for C100s. In fact it does not work well for other terminals as it produces a negative result for 19200 baud! BaudFactor should really be set to BaudRate/10000.0. As far as the fancy IL and DL parameters go, ignore the comments in Trm.h; they are at best misleading. ILmf is the *padding* requirement of a terminal and ILov is the overhead for doing an N line insert. Of course, that may not be a constant. You just have to put in a ``best guess''. I have a document I wrote on writing terminal drivers for Emacs that I could e-mail. It's in TeX so you can't print nice copies with n/troff, but you can still read it. There's a catch, however: it describes the display.c code that I am using, and as far as I know there are three or four people that have that code. It's a rewrite of the #264 code, with only the basic structure kept the same. In particular, the cost factors are represented differently, so I'm not sure it would be much use in that respect. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci (301) 454-7690 UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland