From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: supporting more faces on 256 colors xterms Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:15:06 -0800 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200402080815.i188F46M001654@gremlin.ics.uci.edu> References: <200402080413.i184DH6M015994@gremlin.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1076228367 24121 80.91.224.253 (8 Feb 2004 08:19:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 08 09:19:21 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Apk9x-0004wN-00 for ; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:19:21 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Apk9x-0004MP-00 for ; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:19:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Apk99-0007a2-09 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:18:31 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Apk94-0007Zl-6a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:18:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Apk8Y-0007Ti-EG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:18:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [128.195.1.70] (helo=gremlin.ics.uci.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Apk8Y-0007Tf-1G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:17:54 -0500 Original-Received: from vino.ics.uci.edu (vino.ics.uci.edu [128.195.11.198]) by gremlin.ics.uci.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i188F46M001654; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 00:15:05 -0800 (PST) Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 43 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=-120, required 5, EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION, IN_REP_TO, MIME_EXCESSIVE_QP, PORN_10, REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_IN_WHITELIST) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19800 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19800 Eli Zaretskii writes: > > From: Dan Nicolaescu > > Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:13:19 -0800 > > > > Eli Zaretskii suggested adding another face specifier `nrcolors>='. > > `nrcolors>=' can be used in `defface' to have common face specifications > > for 256 colors xterms and color X11. > > Actually, I suggested `ncolors>=' etc., but I'm known to be a bad > player of the naming game. IMHO, the name is OK, it was just a typo. If there's any other suggestion we can change it before the patch is checked in. Can we get an agreement that adding this new face specifier NCOLORS>= is the way to go? When we do, I will prepare a patch for the default and font-lock deffaces to take advantage of NCOLORS>=. I can see > > Next step would be to make xterm.el understand color names, currently > > xterm.el generates color names that look like "color-XXX". > > Sorry, I don't see why is this needed. tty-colors.el should already > cause Emacs to find the nearest color-ZZZ that approximates every X > color best. What am I missing? Nothing, I was confused. I thought that only colors that can be seen when doing M-x list-colors-display can be used for faces. Good nothing to worry in this are then. > > I know there is another xterm mutant that supports 88 colors, that > > one can be probably treated the same way as a 256 colors one. > > The CVS version of xterm.el should support both of them (and also the > 16-color variety) already. Doesn't it? It does. Do we want another NCOLORS>= bracket for 88 color xterms? IMHO no. Thanks. --dan