how to backspace in vi 2555

Self-contradiction is not explication. You should have said:

Yes! You are right about Emacs, but please note that that necessarily means that Emacs' developers contributed to the conflicting usage of ^H.

A truth, but not at all what you said.

I sure wish you would learn to write clearly. I know what you want to say. The words you have above, if rearranged, could be used to say it.

However, you have the right facts, but your opinions are based on invalid conclusions.

What you are saying is that Bill Unruh learned to use a computer with DOS and-or MS Windows, and thinks that *defines* the right way to do things. It doesn't, and almost any place where you apply that logic, you will be wrong.

The (IBM) PC keyboard itself does *not* send ^H when the *anything*. DOS got it wrong, because they didn't have enough sense to copy what others were doing... (Gates was in a rush to make money, and research was not on his priority list.)

The ASCII character set was developed before the concept of a "video monitor" existed, and was intended for hard copy terminals. The "BS" and the "SPACE" signals are cursor left and cursor right, non-destructive moves. The DEL signal was also known as "Rubout", and as intended to be destructive for the data sent not the data displayed. (DEL originated from the use of paper tape, and was all holes punched, which removed that character from the tape; on a hard copy terminal technically should have simply been ignored, but often it overprinted the cursor location with a box.)

When "glbutt TTYs" were build, each manufacturer adapted "carriage control" signals to the capabilities of their product as they saw fit. Not all of them were the same, obviously. However, it should be noted that in fact the system used by DEC, primarily with the VT-100, was the basis for ECMA-48-ISO 6429-ANSI X3.64 standardized terminal controls. Essentially you are complaining about the implementation of X3.64 being based on the DEC VT-100 terminal.

Clearly there was a division between people who felt BS should or should not be destructive. Unix developers, as is not uncommon, picked what they thought was the best way; Microsoft did it the quick and easy way. As a result, when Microsoft's marketing was successful at selling their quick and easy hacks to millions of people, those people became habituated to something less than the best.

You are apparently an example of Microsoft's marketing success.

It sends out a scan code, as shown above. If you want, the OS can cause that to be seen as 0xFE instead of 0x08 or 0x7F.

The (IBM) PC hardware is *not* restricted to doing things the way MicroSoft decided.

Everyone who talks about ASCII codes. Particularly if they use any kind of masking. (I.e., programmers.)

... ...

It seems your clear as mud writing style has bitten everyone again. I thought, as did others, that that was exactly what you meant. I see that you didn't mean to to say that. Okay; thank you for finally clarifying something.

And it is not appropriate. (Nice of you to admit this is all bullpoo though.)

...

Only if you think MicroSoft defines standards.

Yes. I'll agree to that as what it originally was, when applied to paper tape.

Technically, the DEL *signal* should simply be ignored by a display device. That means the signal generated by the keyboard, and-or any key labeled with DEL, can do anything the implementation chooses and still be "correct".

It has been and still is often used as a destructive backspace when used with video terminals.

And I fail to see how that is wrong. Any of them can be configured to *work*.

...

That simply is not true. They are NOT hard coded. Emacs, as above, is a good example.

Your (lack of) response is accurate... ;-)

Untrue.

Consider a "simple" keyboard: no "function keys". Guess what those arrow keys are? (Non-existent. And every program should be designed to work without them.) Yes you can wave your hands in the air and scream through the cloud of blue smoke that PCs are everywhere... but they aren't *everywhere*...

When a terminal sends ASCII (i.e., when it is not an attached console that can use scan codes), arrow keys and other "function keys" require escape sequences that use precision timing to differentiate between a manually typed sequence and an escape sequence. It fails when the keyboard communicates over either a slow link or a link with high jitter. (Conditions common to modems and the Internet, respectively.)

Indeed, using *your* logic, the arrow keys are "useless extra" keys, and should not be there!

Linux does it right. Your concepts are a mess, and your "biased" descriptions are simply in error.

Your set of fabrications would give the OP a much bigger problem, if not corrected.

The OP has enough trouble without someone blowing smoke to obscure the path.

Giggle snort, laugh. Obviously *you* don't have a clue howviworks. If ^H is a non-destructive backspace invi(which is key is a destructive backspace... then it *clearly* works as I've described and *not* the way you claim it should! If that key sends the ^H you say it should, it will be the same as CTRL-H, which is non-destructive.

Why do you quote signature lines????

--