Re: [patch] selected/context colors

[Charles Levert]

* On Friday 2005-11-18 at 00:53:21 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Charles Levert wrote:
> > * On Wednesday 2005-11-16 at 22:54:58 +0100, Benno Schulenberg
> > wrote: 
> > > Charles Levert wrote:
> > > > Have you tried with a recent 'less' version,
> > > > such as 385-cl4 or 393-cl1?
> > >
> > > Not yet.
> >
> > When you do, please tell me about any remaining
> > horizontal scrolling problems.
> 
> Already with an unpatched less-393 all searching and horizontal 
> scrolling works fine also with coloured lines.  (Was using less-382 
> up until now.)

Good to hear.  less-393 includes most improvements
from less-385-cl4, plus support for x^Hx^H_
(_simultaneous_ bold and underline using the
backspace technique).  less-393-cl1 only adds
the -j.4 thing from less-385-cl4 to less-393.


> Ah!  But times are a-changing.  Things you could say yesteryear will 
> get you arrested today, or shot dead in the streets.
> 
> Sorry...  Dutch politics...  (If there is such a thing.)

Yes,  Holland has this reputation for being
very strict and intolerant, especially with soft
drugs and prostitution.


> Sure, "damn" is okay, if you wish, but I was also trying to say that 
> it's a bit over the top, because: how many ways are there to choose 
> these colours?

You missed part of the original intent of
the comment.  Some users were bound to post to
the mailing list that this choice of colors is
ugly.  We all know that colors are subjective,
except unfortunately to color-blind persons.
This was meant to convey the idea that any such
complaint had little chance of getting another
just-as-arbitrary default set of colors chosen
instead.

But I didn't anticipate the "damn" controversy.


> For a match there's only two: green, or bright red 
> (taking into account it should be readable on both dark and light 
> backgrounds).  Then only the colours for file name and line number 
> remain.  Any combination of blue, green, cyan or magenta would do, 
> really.

Not blue (nor yellow), as foregrounds on an
unspecified background.  See the 42-line comment
in the code just a few lines above explaining
all this.  (Because some color _pairs_, such as
white-on-white, are hard to read.)

> So, what's so damn good about the combination you happen 
> to like?  No, don't answer that, let's leave it here.  :)  It does 
> look good.

Now _that_ was exactly the intended reaction
(with its sarcasm included).

The thing I find surprising is that you
don't give me credit in the first place in
automatically assuming that I seriously was
thinking in such a fashion.  The irony in
the arbitrary and un-defendable nature of the
very statement was built-in from the start.
I was expecting the reader, at some point, to
think to himself:  "Oh!  That was only a joke!".
But a _harmless_ one made to provoke reflection
on any proposal for change in default colors a
reader might have been tempted to make.