Re: [PATCH 2/3] color.c: Support bright aixterm colors

From: Eyal Soha <shawarmakarma@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2020, 16:52 UTC
Message-ID: <CANsz78+-Z89d8E=n3cjfnXaGVFXpchdG7EjtdQuFjzo-=2aPeA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv9p8bo0o.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 10:47 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 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.

Show 6 quoted lines

>
> 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.

Show 11 quoted lines

>
> 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.

Show 7 quoted lines

>
> 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