Re: terminfo 256 colors scheme patch

[Thomas Dickey]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:13:30PM +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>     Latest 2006/05/06 terminfo. The xterm-256color and xterm-88color
> entries have setb and setf sequences from 8 colors scheme, incompatible
> with colors #8 to #255. This could be solved by setb@ and setf@ removal,
> or insertion of 256-aware sequences into xterm+256color building block.

yes - I overlooked that in this change to terminfo.src:

# 2006-02-18
#       * remove setf/setb from xterm-256color to match xterm #209 -TD

> 
>     The attached patch adds such set[bf] capabilities, able to do 256
> colors, and doing the usual blue/red and yellow/cyan inversions for the
> first 16 colors. Does it make any sense?

yes/no - the reason I removed those 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).
 
>     Also all 4 seta?[bf] caps send the shorter sequences for the first
> 16 colors. Works OK on PuTTY and GNU Screen; I hope it doesn't break on
> Gnome, Rxvt, nor any future block use=ers.

I suppose so - I recall someone suggesting that (I thought for a different
reason than length).  But just the setaf/setab strings...
 
>     While at it, the patch also removes a duplicate comment, a typo, and
> notes appearance date of xterm+256color building block in old changelog.
> No self changelog note, of course.

;-
 
>     BTW an unrelated question: GNU Screen doesn't manage the <BackTab>
> key (but may pass-thru the key sent by the underlying terminal). Why
> does the "screen" entry have kcbt=\E[Z ?

I may have been confused, but it's possible that some version of screen
was filtering out strings that weren't in the terminal description.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey <address@hidden>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature