On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:44:30AM -0800, Nate Soares <[email protected]> wrote:
> Common sense. In what scenario would a user define a bold font and also
> want the colors to be changed?
In exactly those secanrios where the user wishes that. I already gave you
an example: I myself prefer it that way, possibly because I am used to it.
> It removes abilities from urxvt (the ability to display bold #0) without
> adding any benefit.
No, the ability is still there, as I pointed out (+is), nothing is removed
by a preference that isn't defaulting the way you want it.
> It's not even a tradeoff. It's a hobble.
That's not a reasonable argument, and even if it were, it would be based
on wrong assumptions (above).
> There is nothing I can think of that will break when color inversion is
> removed that doesn't already break when you have a boldFont. Inversion
> with a boldFont only hurts, it never helps.
As explained before, urxvt doesn't do any inversion - why do you still
claim it does?
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
