On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:55, John Beckett wrote: > >> Richard Hartmann wrote: >>> Can you add the patch to the list, please? :) >> >> Sure but I don't have time to work out what text to put. > > Unless Matt chips on before you next look at it, I propose what I basically > stole & adapted from his announcement email: > > Unified colors across various Terminal emulators to make colorschemes > consistent. Supports the xterm-compatible, Eterm and Konsole palettes. > Which palette is used for the matching is controlled by a new option, > 'termpalette' (short name 'tpal'). If the option is unset, default to xterm > palette, but display a warning that color matching might be inaccurate. >
Sorry for the late reply, it's been a very busy week. Anyway, I think I plan on changing tactics with this, since Bram was unhappy with the thought of adding another option, but has tended to be happy to make changes to vim's source to make scripting easier. I think what I'd most like to see happen at this point is for CSApprox.vim to get a few hundred more downloads, and then ask for it to be included in the default runtime. It works pretty well out of the box nearly 100% of the time, and is much easier to customize than the nearly equivalent code I went with in the patch. That being said, there's one thing I'd like to have changed in vim's source to better support CSApprox, namely that gui colors are not stored unless vim has +gui. That probably was meant to help keep the size of the binary or memory usage down for the old dos16 version, but since CSApprox.vim hooks in by postprocessing the highlights after a :colorscheme command, this renders it useless on vim binaries that weren't built with gui support. I think Bram's much more likely to agree to changing the source to keep the gui colors even without +gui than he would be to ever accept the original patch, both because it's a much smaller change and it's because just enabling already-tested code. Any thoughts on that, Bram? > PS: Matt, did you look at how Konsole in KDE 4 does some things > differently? Mainly, it now supports real bold etc instead of mapping > them to color changes. I'm not sure I understand what the difference is? Feel free to respond off-list with an explanation of what you mean. ;-) ~Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
