Re: 256 colors
On Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 0:01:57 -0400, cga2000 wrote:
> you tell me that gnu/screen accesses both the "screen" terminfo entry
> and the undelying xterm's.
More precisely Screen reads the TERM=xterm (or whatever) terminfo
for the real underlying terminal on one side, and implements a mostly
hardcoded virtual terminal on the other side. Apps inside Screen run in
this virtual term, and need an appropriate terminfo describing it:
TERM=screen and friends.
>>| screen-256color-bce|GNU Screen with 256 colors and BCE,
>>| sgr0=\E[m^O,
>>| ccc@, initc@,
>>| use=xterm+256color,
>>| use=screen-bce,
> I understand that:
Reverse: Values declared first win. Note that a "+" in entry name
denotes a building block, not a full usable entry. So this
screen-256color-bce is: screen-bce, with added 256 colors definitions
(colors#, pairs#, setaf/setab, ccc, and initc), wiped ccc and initc
(customizing color palette is not implemented by Screen), and finally
modified attributes-off to also turn off line drawing characters.
> It looks like mutt is aware of certain 256-capable terminals based on
> their terminfo name.
Not on the entry name itself. Mutt and all well written apps should
be checking the corresponding terminfo content:
| $ tput colors
| 256
But of course poorly written apps do exist. And also some apps may
have user settings to override a presumed wrong terminfo.
> screen-bce supports 256 colors
No:
| $ TERM=screen-bce tput colors
| 8
But whatever entry, your specially compiled Screen really supports
256 colors. Even if some apps already use them (by whatever trick), you
still want a colors#256 entry to properly describe it.
The pity in Mutt is the poor support of bright colors in 16 colors
terminals. It does the same as in 8 colors mode: bold normal color.
Bye! Alain.
--
This mail is confidential. Don't read it. Then after eat your screen.