>> The other thing I wonder about is the hardcoding of ASCII colorized >> strings and the start/stop character strings (\033[...). Are there >> other methods of colorizing? > > Yes.
Indeed - most obviously, anyone running a build-'bot that reports its build logs via the web (it's a common solution for continuous integration setups, for example) will be interested in colouring by use of HTML/CSS. Of course, they can probably do that by streaming your ASCII colorized stuff through a suitable perl script, but they might be happier if they were in a position to do it directly. The other reason to not hardcore ASCII colorizing is simply to leave the user at liberty to chose which colours to use for which semantic types. If you hard-code it, I'm guessing you'll also be hard-coding your choices of how to colour which parts, where a system that permits user customization may be preferable. For example, you only have so many colours available to you; and I'm guessing that a truly systematic study of what different types of text are worthy of colouring would leave you with more types than colours. You'll thus end up conflating some types of text, making them use the same colour, simply to fit the possible types into the available colours. A user with different interests than yours might well want to separate types of text that you opt to conflate, and be willing to conflate some you separated in order to free up the colours to permit that. Of course, how far you want to go towards flexibility may be limited by the amount of palava and upheaval you'd have to inflict on the code to attain it, Eddy. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make