Re: color issues

To: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: color issues
From: Christoph Berg <cb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:39:37 +0200
In-reply-to: <20031024045217.GA28366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mutt-users-request@mutt.org?body=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
References: <20031024013747.GA27446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20031024034128.GA50898@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20031024045217.GA28366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

Re: Re: color issues [dan radom <dan@xxxxxxxxx>, Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 
10:52:17PM -0600, <20031024045217.GA28366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> hmmm.  My preference would be for "color status black green" to do just
> that, regardless of the index color for ~N.  The background color for
> status is honored, so why not foreground?  Am i just thinking about this
> the wrong way?

I think you mixed up "status", "normal", and "indicator".

Christoph
-- 
Christoph Berg <cb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, http://www.df7cb.de/
Wohnheim D, 2405, Universität des Saarlandes, 0681/9657944

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Follow-Ups:
- Re: color issues
  - From: dan radom

References:
- color issues
  - From: dan radom
- Re: color issues
  - From: Tweax Daemon
- Re: color issues
  - From: dan radom

Prev by Date: Re: color issues
Next by Date: Re: mutt claiming that gpg signatures aren't verified
Previous by thread: Re: color issues
Next by thread: Re: color issues
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread