bug#4033: 23.1; list-colors-display is misleading

[Drew Adams]

> > The RGB values listed at the right side are misleading.
> 
> Only if you interpret them to mean not what they were supposed to
> mean.
>
> > The displayed RGB hex string ideally should reflect the 
> > user's actual color possibilities.  If there is no way for
> > Emacs to know that, then it's better to err on the side of
> > providing more information: #RRRRGGGGBBBB, rather than less:
> > #RRGGBB.  E.g., it's better to translate LightBlue as
> > #befded5effff than as #beedff.

(I meant #ADADD8D8E6E6 and #ADD8E6 for LightBlue - got my numbers wrong; sorry.)

> 16-bit RGB components is what Emacs uses internally, IIRC.  That is
> the reason we show each one as two letters.

Is that right? Could you please check about this?

I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Emacs treats colors
differently, depending on your display's color support. In particular, I thought
that `display-color-cells' would show how many colors are supported, and
therefore how many RGB hex digits would be appropriate (available) for a given
display. IOW, I thought that on some displays you might be able to use only
#RRGGBB, while on others you could use #RRRGGGBBB (where there would be a
perceived difference when using fewer or more digits).

> I think this bug should be closed.

If you're sure about what you say, then yes. But please check to be sure. Thx.