> So instead of patching it worth adding to FAQ:
>
> Q: Why st brightens the bold face with default color, while other
>terminals don't?
> A: You can achieve compatible behavior by placing defaultfg outside of
>first 256 palette entries.
Could you send a patch for this? (FAQ is part of st
Hi all!
I was about to patch st today, when I realized that if I define
foreground and background color indexes to be _outside_ 256 color
palette, behavior with the brightening of the bold face would be
consistent with other terminals (st just don't know how to brighten the
index which is outside
> "CL" == Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> writes:
>> (by the way I just noticed that st is also brightening underline
>> text, while other terminals don't)
CL>> If you request the brightening of underline, you will get
CL>> brightened un‐ derline.
Ah, sure, I didn't modify
Greetings.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 06:37:45 +0200 Yuri Karaban wrote:
> I will describe cases why I need it:
>
> 1. I had bold shell prompt, which was black in all virtual terminals I
>have used so far. When I run st first time the first thing that
>caught my eye was the _gray_ prompt. It wa
> "F" == FRIGN writes:
F>> No, seriously. If you bring up a point, and we discuss it, we
F>> prefer discussions which cut the bullshit and get to the point
F>> of the problem - or - non-problem. Don't confuse this with being
F>> habitutional, it's just that we have agreed on
> "REVC" == Roberto E Vargas Caballero writes:
>> Bold colors are brightened to stand out even more. But with the
>> light background and dark foreground brightening acts contrary
>> making the letters less emphasized.
REVC>> It is not the first time this question is discusse
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:08:37 +0300
Yuri Karaban wrote:
> Probably, but would it be better if I stay and continue to irritate
> habitues?
Dimidium facti qui coepit habet. Disce pati!
No, seriously. If you bring up a point, and we discuss it, we prefer
discussions which cut the bullshit and get t
> Bold colors are brightened to stand out even more. But with the light
> background and dark foreground brightening acts contrary making the
> letters less emphasized.
It is not the first time this question is discussed in the list, and your
patch is the second about this issue.
> Don't jeer, be
Greetings.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:20:11 +0200 Yuri Karaban wrote:
> Hi Christoph!
>
> Probably, but would it be better if I stay and continue to irritate
> habitues?
We don’t like sissies turning around after the first question.
Sincerely,
Christoph Lohmann
Hi Christoph!
Probably, but would it be better if I stay and continue to irritate
habitues?
Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more;
Si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi.
(When at Rome, do as the Romans do.)
> "CL" == Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> writes:
CL>> Greetings.
CL>> You gi
Greetings.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:49:20 +0200 Yuri Karaban wrote:
> > "REVC" == Roberto E Vargas Caballero writes:
>
> >> if default color is used (with light background and black
> >> foreground it's looking rather ugly, brightened black font
> >> becomes gray and unreadable on
> "REVC" == Roberto E Vargas Caballero writes:
>> if default color is used (with light background and black
>> foreground it's looking rather ugly, brightened black font
>> becomes gray and unreadable on light gray background).
REVC>> If you don't like you can always change t
> if default color is used (with light background and black foreground
> it's looking rather ugly, brightened black font becomes gray and
> unreadable on light gray background).
If you don't like you can always change the background.
> Please consider adopting standard behavior, otherwise it's ma
From: Yuri Karaban
Hello,
I found that st behavior is inconsistent with XTerm and RXVT in regard
to handling bold text. XTerm and RXVT are not making bold font bright
if default color is used (with light background and black foreground
it's looking rather ugly, brightened black font becomes gray
14 matches
Mail list logo
