tag 379839 wontfix thanks On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:35:47PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:03:24AM -0500, James Vega wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:40:59PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 09:50:24PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > > > > Hi, I noticed that the default color schema of vimdiff is wrong, since > > > > added lines in one of the files are not visible because foreground and > > > > background color are identical. > > > > This depends on the colorscheme. The default colorscheme does make > > Comment that are part of a DiffAdd hard to read. Although, in my case > > it was because the 'background' option was set to 'light' when I had a > > dark background on my terminal. Setting 'background' to 'dark' fixed > > the problem. > > Indeed, using :set background=dark (in a bright *and* dark terminal) > improves the situation. Please note that I tried all colorschemes also > in an inversed terminal (but without background=dark). > > The contrast is nevertheless bad. Bright blue on blue or pink on red are > not optimal. The older settings where better.
I agree that the contrast is bad, but there's only so much you can do with the limited color set available in a terminal. More syntax elements were introduced in vim7 so it's harder to avoid less-than-ideal highlighting scenarios. I'm tagging this as wontfix since there's not much to do about it even though I agree that it can be problematic. James -- GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
