On 2015-12-31T15:15:05-0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:07:42AM -0500, S. Gilles wrote: > > A number of terminal emulators (xterm with TERM=xterm-256color and st, > > off the top of my head), interpret the A_BLINK attribute by actually > > blinking, not setting the background color to the bright version. A > > quick way to test this is > > > > :color indicator black brightblack > > > > which on some terms (urxvt) will cause black-on-gray text, and on > > others (xterm) will cause an unreadable blinking line. > > ...while both terminals support blinking... > > > This patch changes that behavior by avoiding A_BLINK and directly > > using the bright versions of colors if they are available. I've tested > > it on urxvt, xterm (with TERM=xterm-256color), and st, and it behaves > > as I expect. On xterm (with TERM=xterm), blinking still persists, but > > it always did that anyway, so at least this patch doesn't seem to > > break that case. > > ...a still better improvement would be to remove the A_BLINK code altogether.
I had thought of doing that, but I didn't want to break the hypothetical environment where COLORS == 8, using a color above 7 causes bad things to happen, and setting A_BLINK actually does make the background bright (e.g. aterm, though that's been deprecated for just about 8 years now). If A_BLINK is considered bad enough, it would be trivial to ignore `bright' when applied to backgrounds where COLORS < 16, accepting the loss of functionality for any aterm users (unless there's a better way to do this, of course). -- S. Gilles
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
