You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Some terminals could only support a subset of the keyboard enhancement protocol, but crossterm’s query for support only returns a boolean. This could be an issue when an application receives a positive answer for support, but the terminal doesn’t implement the entire protocol it expects (because of a work-in-progress or else). This issue was recently raised in Zellij (see zellij-org/zellij#3789).
Describe the solution you'd like
The proposed solution by Zellij’s maintainer was to either improve the current supports_keyboard_enhancement function or to add an additional interface for a more granular query. The second would be probably better, in my opinion, to avoid breaking existing code, but the semantics of the current function should be changed to mean a complete support of the protocol.
Describe alternatives you've considered if any
Complete implementation of the protocol by terminals, but this could not always be guaranteed, needed or wanted.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Some terminals could only support a subset of the keyboard enhancement protocol, but
crossterm
’s query for support only returns a boolean. This could be an issue when an application receives a positive answer for support, but the terminal doesn’t implement the entire protocol it expects (because of a work-in-progress or else). This issue was recently raised in Zellij (see zellij-org/zellij#3789).Describe the solution you'd like
The proposed solution by Zellij’s maintainer was to either improve the current
supports_keyboard_enhancement
function or to add an additional interface for a more granular query. The second would be probably better, in my opinion, to avoid breaking existing code, but the semantics of the current function should be changed to mean a complete support of the protocol.Describe alternatives you've considered if any
Complete implementation of the protocol by terminals, but this could not always be guaranteed, needed or wanted.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: