From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CB01F466 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 18:47:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726621AbgARSrI (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:47:08 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:56598 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726502AbgARSrH (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:47:07 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F71340A9D; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:47:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=GbsVu3L2YT29Y1IRCPnoit5sUWk=; b=gaUzdw xlp2IrSQeF+ony9lh9EQ5bVNh3/VyGNswy8HQ/92P3lskgOgEglgv+WUoSKu6eiX 2aDIgzuD9oUQy98D8MKcPolYwWy1OZZH9mgbFKXnJokKs3pvyNaUwGooGrTW8yR5 yQePqSUl7ZEjAVWffJ/FeN4di678VSCMsi5Qw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=t5+SBLODE3CovtLoEqYvLlN6OkWRV9rd r+AhbRSARQOClHhHURiKw1AYpf7WKQe9YLcCozNxGikDZX3ixyA8TarrcoPBUVXc /Gy+AgtZmkWaEtZZodCREU5rFHUgHOpPLARHYh9ySb1uJlBtUzMr8946CRrryvag KeL305ecLPE= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350E940A9C; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:47:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A9A340A9B; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:47:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eyal Soha Cc: peff@peff.net, git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] color.c: Support bright aixterm colors References: <20200118145318.5177-1-shawarmakarma@gmail.com> <20200118145318.5177-2-shawarmakarma@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:47:03 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200118145318.5177-2-shawarmakarma@gmail.com> (Eyal Soha's message of "Sat, 18 Jan 2020 09:53:17 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EBA86B58-3A22-11EA-B5F4-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eyal Soha writes: > These colors are the bright variants of the 3-bit colors. OK, so this round the design is to reuse the ANSI mode instead of introducing a new AIX mode that sits next to ANSI, 256 and RGB? For this to work, not just the 90-97 range for bright-ansi orders the colors the same way as 30-37 range (only brighter), but also the differences between corresponding fore- and background colors must also be 10 just like the regular ANSI colors. So perhaps an additional sentence or two deserve to be there, e.g. ... of the 3-bit colors. Instead of 30-37 range for the foreground and 40-47 range for the background, they live in 90-97 and 100-107 range, respectively. or something like that, perhaps? > The basic colors accepted are `normal`, `black`, `red`, `green`, `yellow`, > `blue`, `magenta`, `cyan` and `white`. The first color given is the > -foreground; the second is the background. > +foreground; the second is the background. All the basic colors except > +`normal` have a bright variant that can be speficied by prefixing the > +color with `bright`, like `brightred`. Nicely and readably written. I have to wonder if spelling "bright", i.e. two words smashed together without anything in between words, is in widespread use (in other words, are we following an established practice, or are we inventing our own), or if we need to prepare for synonyms? HTML/CSS folks seem to use words-smashed-without-anything-in-betwen so they should be fine with this design; I no longer recall what X did ;-) Looking good. Thanks.