On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:54:18PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > can be right now a single call, while you would need several. Also, if you
> > eventually want to colorize something in say error_at, warning_at and
> > similar format strings. For those you really don't have the printer at
>
> Do we really want to allow that much flexibility? Then the color_dict
> needs to be dynamic or the caller is restricted to re-using existing
> colornames.
Yes, I think we want that flexibility, it certainly isn't that much
difficult to support it (a few lines of code, will try to code the %r/%R
variant tomorrow), and from time to time it can be useful.
Perhaps that %L or whatever character isn't taken for the expanded location
could be used too.
> I was expecting the use of color to be rather limited to a very very
> few well-defined concepts. I was hoping that higher-level diagnostic
> functions would be oblivious to the color stuff to not make the
> diagnostics code much more complex.
I don't see why we would need dynamic color names, as the color names are
to be overridable through GCC_COLORS, documented in invoke.text etc., the
list better be static and not too long, but we can add new color names in
the future when needed.
Jakub
