From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 21074 invoked from network); 13 May 2022 04:11:48 -0000 Received: from zero.zsh.org (2a02:898:31:0:48:4558:7a:7368) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 13 May 2022 04:11:48 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20210803; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Id:Sender:Content-Type:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: References:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=BOSsdHs5Lpf5+k5mGis1+alVM0cxhUlOIVa19KD7BKc=; b=GtTSgiyKu9TZMuFRXbxQ/qWRU7 N09a2fFENyc4Xt4e0VShgrewSWGRFpVVB0DlJe44HzNpxPII12eSok0MJzKHpaviTjpXKxtfW1XtZ 6hcEfHdTTk/gYvw7r7/qVL7dvIxgpxI8L2YssnXkHiCJYF1paTVTnbPuj3Nmky1DJZLlr5eZSDMe2 nYyuDvyGh1Yudun5IQy4fA3LtWJvBgDHWyANfkfhsMn5N262bmc7FpEVGKTfj57wlwcxxjqEg41Ye 6becmwqkZDx/YT+FpkUizi1o25UHb/XKKCxSSpGsE42QpnNR+Ew3GtpsAWp9EmGK6MaDwH59w+JTM 4ATbFKog==; Received: from authenticated user by zero.zsh.org with local id 1npMea-0009G6-8K; Fri, 13 May 2022 04:11:48 +0000 Received: from authenticated user by zero.zsh.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1npMeI-0008uF-32; Fri, 13 May 2022 04:11:30 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D2927C0054; Fri, 13 May 2022 00:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap48 ([10.202.2.98]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 13 May 2022 00:11:28 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrgeekgdejkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsehttd ertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpefnrgifrhgvnhgtvggpgggvlhojiihquhgviicuoehlrghr rhihvhesiihshhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgeehgeeuleeffefhvedthe elueeiteeuudejueevgefgudelteetgeeltefgvdeunecuffhomhgrihhnpehinhhvihhs ihgslhgvqdhishhlrghnugdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrh grmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlrghrrhihvhdomhgvshhmthhprghuthhhphgvrhhsohhn rghlihhthidqudduhedukeejjedtgedqudduledvjeefkeehqdhlrghrrhihvheppeiish hhrdhorhhgsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2388231A005D; Fri, 13 May 2022 00:11:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-591-gfe6c3a2700-fm-20220427.001-gfe6c3a27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <5fd58e66-626c-42ab-8463-00643d2d7171@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1c851030-c051-e5f7-8d82-a6a326eacff1@pygos.space> References: <5af198ae-17e7-1136-8c6e-8e3008c43c00@pygos.space> <1c851030-c051-e5f7-8d82-a6a326eacff1@pygos.space> Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 00:09:37 -0400 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Lawrence_Vel=C3=A1zquez?= To: "Jan Breig" Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support more colors Content-Type: text/plain X-Seq: 50214 Archived-At: X-Loop: zsh-workers@zsh.org Errors-To: zsh-workers-owner@zsh.org Precedence: list Precedence: bulk Sender: zsh-workers-request@zsh.org X-no-archive: yes List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: On Thu, May 12, 2022, at 5:19 PM, Jan Breig wrote: > +# Strong color codes > + 90 strong-gray 100 bg-strong-gray > + 91 strong-red 101 bg-strong-red > + 92 strong-green 102 bg-strong-green > + 93 strong-yellow 103 bg-strong-yellow > + 94 strong-blue 104 bg-strong-blue > + 95 strong-magenta 105 bg-strong-magenta > + 96 strong-cyan 106 bg-strong-cyan > + 97 strong-white 107 bg-strong-white > ) What is the rationale for calling these "strong"? I don't think I've ever seen them referred to as anything other than "bright". See the xterm documentation, for example: https://invisible-island.net/xterm/ctlseqs/ctlseqs.html#h3-Functions-using-CSI-_-ordered-by-the-final-character_s_ https://invisible-island.net/xterm/xterm.faq.html#bold_vs_16colors I would prefer these be called "*bright-*" to avoid unnecessary terminological discrepancy. If "strong" really is more common than I think (entirely possible!), then the "*strong-*" names could be included as additional reverse-mapped keys, but I would still advocate for the numbered keys to have "*bright-*" values. > for k in ${color[(I)3?]}; do color[fg-${color[$k]}]=$k; done > +for k in ${color[(I)9?]}; do color[fg-${color[$k]}]=$k; done I think these two lines could be expressed as for k in ${color[(I)[39]?]}; do color[fg-${color[$k]}]=$k; done ... Tangentially, as I understand it SGR 90-97 and 100-107 are not standardized by ECMA-48 ("ANSI") but are an extension. This is not really a problem, but the comments should be updated so they do not imply that bright colors are ANSI. -- vq