Duncan wrote:
> Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 16
> Jun 2008 08:34:01 -0400:
>
>> Well, this is true and it isn't... In the case of:
>>
>> ewarn line one
>> eblank
>> ewarn line two
>>
>> Obviously it would be the same as ewarn. However, what about here:
>>
>> ewarn line one
>> eblank
>> elog line two
>> eblank
>> einfo line three
Yes, this is a "tricky" case. In the case where the previous and next
output lines differ like this, a grey "*" could be used, or perhaps a
green one. However, read more below on my response to Duncan.
> Here's a novel idea, let blank lines be /real/ blank lines! =8^)
Duncan, your point is well-taken. Taking that idea one step further,
how about using a "neutral" color for the "*" when "eblank" is used.
For example, a medium grey. This would avoid needing logic to guess the
correct color, and it would nicely integrate with the rest of the visual
flow/look of the output. Although I was originally imagining a
context-based color picker, this may be, indeed (as some have pointed
out) overkill.
The actual issue has mostly to do with conditionals like in the example
I gave a while back (in which the blank lines need to be within the
conditionals to avoid bunching up of blank lines when the conditionals
are false). Currently, I tend to color the "*" the same as the
preceding lines (I have no choice bu to pick some color), but this
doesn't really look right, depending on how the conditionals play out.
I am leaning more and more toward the idea of a neutral color for
eblanks, as this would indeed be trivial to code and it would make
output make more sense, especially for conditionals, but for other cases
as well.
-Joe
--
[email protected] mailing list
