Re: Emacs with Guile

[Roland Orre <orre at nada dot kth dot se>]

Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> wrote:
> Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
>> I see now that I phrased my message badly.  I'm of course not talking
>> about having graphics and windows in an xterm window, but supporting
>> standard terminals in Emacs.

> There is no such thing anymore.  A "standard terminal" is now a
> terminal *emulator*.  I don't think I've used a real terminal for 10
> years; most people never have.  There is no reason such an emulator
> cannot do graphics (except lack of standards).

What's the difference? From the program's point of view, there is
no difference running an emulated "standard terminal" or a real one.
In the end of the 70-ies and the beginning of the 80-ies there were
several graphical "standard terminals" were e.g. the Tektronix
protocol were rather popular for graphics. There also evolved
standards like NAPLPS ("naplips") but that was never succesful.

Anyway, a "standard terminal" today is typically a vt100, which is
the most commonly used standard, when running telnet but the vt100
"graphics" is not so advanced, but usually you don't expect a
telnet terminal to show graphics. You may also use for instance
a computer as a "real" terminal, running towards a serial line
protocol in e.g. the Linux console.

	Best regards
	Roland Orre