Re: [PATCH] Support more colors

[Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 12, 2022, at 5:19 PM, Jan Breig wrote:
> +# Strong color codes
> +  90 strong-gray            100 bg-strong-gray
> +  91 strong-red             101 bg-strong-red
> +  92 strong-green           102 bg-strong-green
> +  93 strong-yellow          103 bg-strong-yellow
> +  94 strong-blue            104 bg-strong-blue
> +  95 strong-magenta         105 bg-strong-magenta
> +  96 strong-cyan            106 bg-strong-cyan
> +  97 strong-white           107 bg-strong-white
>   )

What is the rationale for calling these "strong"?  I don't think
I've ever seen them referred to as anything other than "bright".
See the xterm documentation, for example:

https://invisible-island.net/xterm/ctlseqs/ctlseqs.html#h3-Functions-using-CSI-_-ordered-by-the-final-character_s_
https://invisible-island.net/xterm/xterm.faq.html#bold_vs_16colors

I would prefer these be called "*bright-*" to avoid unnecessary
terminological discrepancy.  If "strong" really is more common than
I think (entirely possible!), then the "*strong-*" names could be
included as additional reverse-mapped keys, but I would still
advocate for the numbered keys to have "*bright-*" values.

>   for k in ${color[(I)3?]}; do color[fg-${color[$k]}]=$k; done
> +for k in ${color[(I)9?]}; do color[fg-${color[$k]}]=$k; done

I think these two lines could be expressed as

    for k in ${color[(I)[39]?]}; do color[fg-${color[$k]}]=$k; done

...

Tangentially, as I understand it SGR 90-97 and 100-107 are not
standardized by ECMA-48 ("ANSI") but are an extension.  This is not
really a problem, but the comments should be updated so they do not
imply that bright colors are ANSI.

-- 
vq