From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22407 invoked from network); 25 Oct 1999 10:47:05 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Oct 1999 10:47:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 5910 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 1999 10:46:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8409 Received: (qmail 5903 invoked from network); 25 Oct 1999 10:46:55 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: files attributes not colored by complist In-Reply-To: <199910250830.KAA05199@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> from Sven Wischnowsky at "Oct 25, 1999 10:30:12 am" To: wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Sven Wischnowsky) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:46:50 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL48 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram Sven Wischnowsky wrote: >Personally I don't like this at all. But maybe we can hear other >opinions? I don't normally used coloured ls or completion listings at all. However... In the absence of special background colours, I find the GNU ls style, with only the filename coloured, to be much more pleasant. If backgrounds are used, I see your point; perhaps we should allow the colours for the type characters and spaces to be set separately. OTOH, the people that are setting background colours here are those that have taken the time to configure it themselves; they're already using colour ls, and so probably do want the GNU behaviour. Another thought: we don't need to be compatible, but we shouldn't be gratuitously incompatible either. [Z]LS_COLORS strings should be interoperable. -zefram