On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Nate Soares wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:47:33PM -0800, Nate Soares wrote:
Some terminals do this, some do not (konsole, st). There's solid
precedent for urxvt to switch to the more sane default.
"precedent"? I am not sure you are using this word correctly.
Sorry, part of that is misinformation in my Superuser answer¹ -- I
forgot that I'm running a patched `st` where I changed it to not make
"bold" "bright".
¹: http://superuser.com/a/512731/73015
konsole for example originally was incompatible to any existing
terminal. If that sets a precedent, then clearly it's a precedent on
how not to do it for existing terminals with a long history.
Also, `st` is a bad example for precedent (first commit was in 2008).
(Though, personally, I think terminals should be moving beyond
historical limitations. I've patched my st to add konsole's 24-bit
color sequences [so I can use Vim Gui colorschemes directly in my
terminal]. And I think XTerm's modifyOtherKeys is great, but
there's a big chicken-and-egg problem².)
²: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_dev/JgzLymvvsSI/a4r3UN00EmAJ
[...]
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.
Inversion = intensity? "Intense" and "bright" are other terms that
sometimes describe "bold" mode, but "inverse" or "inverted" is a
different thing.
--
Best,
Ben
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
