> I've never understood the claims about terminfo being more powerful.
> There are 26 upper- and 26 lower-case alphabetics, and adding
> 0-9 for the second char gives up to  5904  possilbe  capabilities.

terminfo is not limited to two-character capability names.  And, since
there is no 1024-byte limit, you can have richer and more complete
capability descriptions too, allowing better optimizations as well as
support for features you would normally not have room for.

> Is the set of capabilities in termcap too small, or is it an issue of
> how they're encoded?  If the former, one (e.g., termcap@Berkeley)
> could always define new capabilities without changing the termcap
> implementation at all.

termcap@berkeley is dead.  termcap is generated from the terminfo master
sources these days, and are in effect stripped-down terminfo entries
which has the capability names and encoding of format strings translated.

Thorsten
--
Thorsten Lockert        | postmaster@sigmasoft.com | Universe, n.:
1238B Page Street       | hostmaster@sigmasoft.com |         The problem.
San Francisco, CA 94117 | tholo@sigmasoft.com      |