Re: [PATCH] help: colorize man pages
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 20, 2021, 02:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <60a5cd3ed5aaf_1e275208a0@natae.notmuch>
- In-Reply-To
- <YKXBdQ36MYz2YG8s@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
brian m. carlson wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On 2021-05-19 at 09:26:12, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 18 2021, brian m. carlson wrote: > > > > > Would you consider various projects coloring their respective manual > > > pages differently to be a desirable state of affairs? > > > > I think it's an important distinction that we're not coloring any manual > > pages, it's a question of whether we invoke "man" invoked by "git help > > <whatever>" with the exact same paramaters/options a user would get with > > "man git-<whatever>". > > Yes. I would expect that if the man option is chosen, then we invoke > man without modification.
Do you also expect git to call diff without options?
> The documentation says, "use the man program as usual". "As usual" > implies the way the user would invoke it.
The documentation can be updated.
> > I don't think it's confusing in that context if we learn to do some "man > > with fancy on top" in this mode.
> It's pretty obvious that "git help commit" and "cargo help build" both > are intended to invoke man when used in the normal way.
And I don't.
I expect the output `foo help $x` to be decided by foo.
If I do `python help len` and I get an error, that's fine.
Show 7 quoted lines
> > But if colors only add, but don't substract information by default > > that's not an issue for the color blind, correct? Or at least that's > > been my understanding in helping color blind user in the past (and not > > being color blind myself). > > The problem becomes if the color is indistinguishable from other > elements.
It is not indistiguishable; a blind person would be able to distinguish them. As much as they can without the patch.
> It is _also_ a problem if we have two colors with sufficient contrast > between the foreground and background but those colors look the same and > there is no other distinguishing factor.
There is another distinguising factor: they are *bold*, or _underlined_.
> So, yes, if the colors only add information and they can otherwise be > distinguished, then it's fine.
We are setting *bold*, _underlined_, and REVERSE.
Exactly in the same way as they are set already.
A truly colorblind person would see no difference at all.
> What I don't like is when a program colors text in a certain way, I > can't read it, and then I can't read the help output or documentation to > turn it off.
If you can't read `man git`, that has absolutely nothing to do with this patch.
> I am specifically arguing against coloring our documentation
We already already coloring our documentation.
> and help output because it leaves users with little recourse to fix > the problem.
man git.
-- Felipe Contreras