[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Font-lock.el uses strange value for min-colors (Was x-display-color-
Re: Font-lock.el uses strange value for min-colors (Was x-display-color-cells returns wrong number)
01 Mar 2004 15:24:52 +0900
"Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:
> when I work on Irix, I generally like to use the Irix-specific colors
> (that are not shown by list-colors-display, of course) because they
> are much more pleasant to my eyes. So to me, those unshown colors are
> much more ``interesting'' than those we show, in that specific case.
If you can come up with a reasonable list of `irix colors' that seems
appropriate, feel free (modulo code-bloat/why-are-we-spending-
> Bottom line is, I think list-colors-display should display colors
> whose number is close to what Emacs can use on that display, except
> that it probably shouldn't be too long (so I don't suggest to display
> 64K colors, for example).
There are only a few important cases in practice -- monochrome,
low-color (e.g. 8 color) displays, 256-color (8 bit) displays, and
everything else. The current behavior seems to be basically same as
what you want for most common displays; if you really care, I suppose
you could look into making it work well in other rarer cases (but I
suppose that you probably don't care enough).
> Perhaps a short comment to the effect that
> we are showing only N out of possible M colors would be good there.
Yes, that would be handy; perhaps it could also mention using the
`#rrggbb' notation to get colors not displayed in the list.
This change would be simple and I think probably good enough.
97% of everything is grunge
Re: Font-lock.el uses strange value for min-colors (Was x-display-color-cells returns wrong number), Jan D., 2004/03/01
Re: Font-lock.el uses strange value for min-colors (Was x-display-color-cells returns wrong number), Eli Zaretskii, 2004/03/01