On 2018-12-17 12:45:22 -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 03:41:36AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > If one chooses to support "bold" for terminals with >= 16 colors,
> > I think that instead of "boldbright", the "bold" prefix would be
> > sufficient, because when the bold attribute is set, adding 8 or
> > not to the color number does not seem to produce different results
> > (I've tested various terminals). In short, one would use:
> >
> > #colors < 16 >= 16
> > bright A_BOLD + 8
> > bold A_BOLD A_BOLD
>
> That sounds reasonable. I'm attaching a possible patch - does that look
> like what you are thinking?
Not tried yet, but...
> Since "bright" was mis-named, I don't see a way to change things without
> affecting older users, but it's easy enough to add a "bold" prefix too.
With the suggestion I've just done in my reply to Derek, I can
propose for foreground colors:
#colors < 16 >= 16
light A_BOLD + 8
bright A_BOLD A_BOLD (as currently)
and for background colors, both "light" and "bright" would do a + 8
when COLORS >= 8, and nothing otherwise.
Mutt currently has (this was introduced in the initial revision,
in 1998):
/* A_BLINK turns the background color brite on some terms */
*attr |= A_BLINK;
This appears to be for rxvt. I think that this should be removed,
as in xterm at least, this enables blinking. And rxvt users can
switch to 256 colors (this is the default, at least under Debian).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
