On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 10:47 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > OK, so this round the design is to reuse the ANSI mode instead of > introducing a new AIX mode that sits next to ANSI, 256 and RGB? Right. Previously I had it with a new AIX enum parallel to ANSI, 256, etc, but it just made the code longer for no good reason. > For this to work, not just the 90-97 range for bright-ansi orders > the colors the same way as 30-37 range (only brighter), but also > the differences between corresponding fore- and background colors > must also be 10 just like the regular ANSI colors. Yes. It's a happy coincidence that the background version is always 10 greater than the foreground version, for ANSI, for AIX, and even for the 256-bit colors. The code takes advantage of that. If that later proves to be not true, color_output needs to be modified. However!, the modification would be just in color_output because the input is now a boolean "background" instead of the previous char "type". I think that's a good improvement so that the caller of color_output doesn't need to know that, ie, '3' is foreground and '4' is background. > > So perhaps an additional sentence or two deserve to be there, e.g. > > ... of the 3-bit colors. Instead of 30-37 range for the > foreground and 40-47 range for the background, they live in > 90-97 and 100-107 range, respectively. Will do. > > or something like that, perhaps? > > > The basic colors accepted are `normal`, `black`, `red`, `green`, `yellow`, > > `blue`, `magenta`, `cyan` and `white`. The first color given is the > > -foreground; the second is the background. > > +foreground; the second is the background. All the basic colors except > > +`normal` have a bright variant that can be speficied by prefixing the > > +color with `bright`, like `brightred`. > > Nicely and readably written. Thanks. I tried to keep the voice in line with the rest of the text. > > I have to wonder if spelling "bright<color>", i.e. two words smashed > together without anything in between words, is in widespread use (in > other words, are we following an established practice, or are we > inventing our own), or if we need to prepare for synonyms? HTML/CSS > folks seem to use words-smashed-without-anything-in-betwen so they > should be fine with this design; I no longer recall what X did ;-) /usr/local/lib/X11/rgb.txt often uses smashed together: https://github.com/vim/vim/blob/master/runtime/rgb.txt Wikipedia calls them "bright" consistently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code#Colors . So we've got a vote for smashing them together and a vote for "bright". Seems okay by me! Eyal
