Re: supporting more faces on 256 colors xterms

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

  > > From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
  > > Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:52:36 -0800
  > > 
  > > We don't really need both `ncolors>=' and `ncolors<=', `ncolors>=' (or
  > > whatever we decide to call it) is enough. 
  > 
  > Perhaps that's true, but implementing both is trivial, and there
  > could be some situations where we might want that.

IMHO, `min-colors' should be enough, what situations do you have in
mind that would need `max-colors' too?. Because it's trivial to
implement, we can add it whenever the need arises. It's easier to add
features that to add features that to remove unneeded features.  

But in order to expedite the process of getting this patch in, and
because I don't have strong feelings about this, I implemented both
versions, both attached as separate patches. Just pick one.

Of all options, `min-colors' seemed the best name, so that is what is
used in the patches.

The default faces and the font-lock faces have been changed to take
advantage of `min-colors'. These faces look very similar now on a 256
colors xterm and on X11.

If the patch is OK, please check it in. If anything else is needed
please let me know. 

Thanks. 
                --dan

PATCH.only_min-colors
Description: Patch that implements only min-colors

PATCH.both_min-colors.max-colors
Description: Patch that implements both min-colors and max-colors