On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Markus Heidelberg wrote: > > I wanted to apply the patches "Unified colors for consistent color > schemes", but the runtime.diff was really ugly: it contained 3 *.orig > files and an older ctermrgb-runtime.diff itself. I wasn't keen on doing > it anymore.
Wonder how that happened.... I must have screwed something up somewhere. > I'd really like the authors of these patches to send me up-to-date > patches that can be applied without problems, if they are interested to > have it in vim_extended. Actually, not only would I not like it in vim_extended, I think it ought to be removed from the "Vim patches" page. CSApprox.vim is almost 100% as useful as that patch, but more configurable and maintainable. The only thing remaining to make CSApprox perfect, by my estimation, would be removing the restrictions that make it require +gui. Bram: I asked about this a few months ago, but it seems to have slipped past you unnoticed. As things stand right now, when a colorscheme does :hi Foo guibg=#rrggbb or :hi Foo guifg=grey90 or some such in a vim built without +gui, that syntax is accepted but the selected color isn't saved anywhere, meaning that synIDattr() can't return those colors, and CSApprox can't pick out terminal colors that are close to them. Is there any reason for doing things this way, or was it just a premature optimization done to save some memory? It would make CSApprox much more useful if it didn't rely on +gui. ~Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
