Conversation
… flag. Most of these affected the VT100 emulation which doesn't reset the LCF for a bunch of things.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Most of these affected the VT100 emulation which doesn't reset the LCF for a bunch of things.
As tested by wraptest, the VT100/102 and VT220 emulations match the wraptest results for the real terminals, and the K95 terminal type matches the VT520
The wraptest results were checked on my VT520, VT220-Z, and an emulated VT100, so K95 should now be matching the real behaviour of these terminals at least as far as wraptest is concerned.
AWM being saved/restored by DECSC/DECRC will be dealt with later by #517.