[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: terminfo 256 colors scheme patch

From: Thomas Dickey
Subject: Re: terminfo 256 colors scheme patch
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:00:47 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Alain Bench wrote:

On Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 20:20:13 -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:

the reason I removed those [setb/setf] from xterm was to discourage
people from using them (motivated by an application that was choosing
those strings when present in preference to setaf/setab).

   OK, amended patch #2 attached: xterm+256color block now removes
setb/setf. I was unable to locate on Google the report by

thanks (sounds good)

Emanuele Giaquinta that triggered xterm #209 patch, so I don't know what
the issues in this app were (just color inversions?). And so:


- Is it sure not a single app uses exclusively set[bf]?

I already knew about occasional non-portable applications on the BSD's that did that, but iirc this one was supposed to be portable, and could only become a nuisance...

- Would it make sense to remove set[bf] from all 8/16 colors entries
already having seta[bf]?

yes/no - I'd left those in as a type of documentation. As long as they're consistent, it's relatively harmless. That color reversal actually only applied to 8 (and 16 was later), and I didn't think it was worth writing a complicated terminfo expression to toggle red/blue over the whole range.

On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:13:30PM +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
Why does the "screen" entry have kcbt=\E[Z ?
some version of screen was filtering out strings that weren't in the
terminal description.

   I see: Thanks. And as most terminals having a <BackTab> key send
this very sequence, most Screen users can make use of it without effort.
Other terminals may need a specific screen.$TERM entry with their own
kcbt, but they are a minority.

yes - I don't see many exceptions

Thomas E. Dickey

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]