Re: Font-lock.el uses strange value for min-colors (Was x-display-color-cells returns wrong number)
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> elta.co.il>
2004-03-01 06:00:15 GMT
> Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:03:41 -0500
> From: Miles Bader <miles <at> gnu.org>
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 08:14:24PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > However, this sounds like a tip of an iceberg: are you saying that
> > list-display-colors will display a list whose length has no simple
> > relation to what display-color-cells returns? That sounds bad,
> > doesn't it?
> Um, no. [I presume you meant `list-colors-display',]
Yes, sorry for the typo.
> Perhaps the doc string should be more clear about it [though I suppose
> technically it's accurate, as it makes no mention of being exhaustive], but
> the default behavior on X is to display a list of `interesting' colors (those
> with names). Such a list is more likely to emphasize colors that are
> interesting to human eyes, and I doubt that anyone cares whether such it has
> any simple relationship to the number of possible colors when its length is
> above about a 100 or so -- you can still, obviously, use the #xxx notation to
> get any color you want.
I know that the list of colors displayed by list-colors-display on X
is fixed (see my message earlier in this thread), but I always
thought, I don't know why, that the length of that list is near the
number returned by display-color-cells.
If this is not true, one may ask what is so ``interesting'' about the
specific colors we show as opposed to those we don't. For example,
when I work on Irix, I generally like to use the Irix-specific colors