Re: terminfo 256 colors scheme patch

[Thomas Dickey]

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:

yes

> - 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
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net