> You mean "invis"? We already have it in st.info. However this is a good
Yes, I was talking about invis. I didn't remember that we already have it, although we didn't have implemented it. In fact, in the last actualization of central terminfo, Thomas E. Dickey removed this capability from our definition for this reason. > "dim" for the faint one, and I can't find anything for struck and I didn't know anything about this capability, but it seems match with the definition of faint of the patch. I think we don't have to modify any of the other definitions (for example sgr or setf), but I will checked. Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
