Re: [Nano-devel] [RFC] is it time to break free from the Pico defaults

[David Ramsey]

Benno Schulenberg:
> For me, running 'nano --ignore -d', the <Delete> and <Backspace> keys
> work normally, on Linux console, on xterm, on rxvt, on urxvt, and on
> xfce4-terminal.  :| (Only when I also use -K do <Del> and <Bsp> start
> to do the same thing: delete rightward.)

It sounds as though your terminals are the exact kind of broken needed
for the -d option.

> What are your settings in the Compatibility tab of xfce4-terminal?  In
> mine, what <Del> and <Bsp> generate are both set to "Automatic".

Here, "infocmp | grep -e kbs -e kdc" gives:

xterm, rxvt, konsole, xfce4-terminal, qterminal: kbs=^H, kdch1=\E[3~
Linux console, urxvt: kbs=^?, kdch1=\E[3~

In xfce4-terminal's Compatibility tab, both <Del> and <Bsp> are set to
automatic.  $TERM is "xterm-256color" in all terminals, except urxvt, in
which $TERM is "rxvt-unicode-256color".  (I've also tried urxvt with
$TERM set to xterm-256color, and it gives the same results.)

I'm still running Slackware/Slackware-current mix, in which things are
patched as little as possible.

In any case, I figure that -d and -K are options that you shouldn't use
unless nano doesn't work properly without them; and, due to the
aforementioned inconsistencies with Backspace, fiddling around with
Backspace is just asking for trouble.

Regarding the latter, why is commit e8a5665 necessary?  I'm aware of the
commit's description, but... trying to bind Ctrl-H and Backspace
separately seems like a problem waiting to happen in terminals where
they generate the same keystroke (and just because they don't on your
systems doesn't guarantee that they don't anywhere).  Also, binding
Ctrl-H to word-cutting while binding Backspace to backspacing sounds
like something we shouldn't encourage, given that it might lead users to
think they can bind, say, Ctrl-I and Tab separately.  (The now-closed
bug #54868, which referenced it, may have lacked information. but
wouldn't it be better to deal with things like it by requiring *some*
contact information in bug reports?)