From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#4033: 23.1; list-colors-display is misleading Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:40:32 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4B9B03BEE43E44B79206302B26E01B3A@us.oracle.com><83r5vro3po.fsf@gnu.org> <363A8C50DA1A48399649F2A7C5336AD3@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Drew Adams , 4033@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1249417076 8964 80.91.229.12 (4 Aug 2009 20:17:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 20:17:56 +0000 (UTC) To: <4033@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>, "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 04 22:17:49 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MYQSC-0004j8-8O for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:17:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54151 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MYQSB-0001xW-MJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:17:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MYQRf-0001kI-6N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:17:15 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MYQRa-0001gU-GB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:17:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49232 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MYQRa-0001gQ-9A for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:17:10 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:35264) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MYQRZ-00078H-Af for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:17:09 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n74K6lc1014120; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:06:48 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n74Jo5pr011813; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:50:05 -0700 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:50:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 4033 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 4033-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B4033.124941485411256 (code B ref 4033); Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:50:05 +0000 Original-Received: (at 4033) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 4 Aug 2009 19:40:54 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from rgminet12.oracle.com (rcsinet12.oracle.com [148.87.113.124]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n74JemYH011251 for <4033@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:40:49 -0700 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rgminet12.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n74JeVpJ026341 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:40:32 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt005.oracle.com (abhmt005.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n74JesAa029128; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:40:55 GMT Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.160.20) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:40:30 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <363A8C50DA1A48399649F2A7C5336AD3@us.oracle.com> Thread-Index: AcoVLiLM2ZvXR/nuS7CMt0Iuc8lFQQAAByMQAAMk9eA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: abhmt005.oracle.com [141.146.116.14] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A010202.4A788EAF.0144:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:17:14 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:29869 Archived-At: > > > The RGB values listed at the right side are misleading. > > > > Only if you interpret them to mean not what they were supposed to > > mean. > > > > > The displayed RGB hex string ideally should reflect the > > > user's actual color possibilities. If there is no way for > > > Emacs to know that, then it's better to err on the side of > > > providing more information: #RRRRGGGGBBBB, rather than less: > > > #RRGGBB. E.g., it's better to translate LightBlue as > > > #befded5effff than as #beedff. > > (I meant #ADADD8D8E6E6 and #ADD8E6 for LightBlue - got my > numbers wrong; sorry.) > > > 16-bit RGB components is what Emacs uses internally, IIRC. That is > > the reason we show each one as two letters. > > Is that right? Could you please check about this? > > I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Emacs treats colors > differently, depending on your display's color support. In > particular, I thought > that `display-color-cells' would show how many colors are > supported, and > therefore how many RGB hex digits would be appropriate > (available) for a given > display. IOW, I thought that on some displays you might be > able to use only > #RRGGBB, while on others you could use #RRRGGGBBB (where > there would be a > perceived difference when using fewer or more digits). > > > I think this bug should be closed. > > If you're sure about what you say, then yes. But please check > to be sure. Thx. BTW, if what you say is the case, then it is all the more unfortunate, since `color-values' returns values up to 65535 (or 65280, for some platforms). That's 16 ** 4, which means that each color component can be represented by up to 4 hex digits: #RRRRGGGGBBBB. That's one reason I've always assumed that up to 4 hex digits were handled by Emacs. If what you say is true, then what is the reason for such a limitation? Is there some inherent limitation, or is this just a design or implementation bug, which could be fixed?