On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:47:33PM -0800, Nate Soares <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For compatibility with other terminals which do the same.
>
> This "feature" was popularized before bold fonts became prevalent.
I didn't know bold fonts are prevalent in terminals.
In any case, urxvt emphasizes backwards compatibility. I don't like the
default fg/bg colours, but changing them breaks a lot of existing setups,
and we decided to not do that gratituously.
> urxvt allows bold fonts and it doesn't make sense to do both.
That's up to the user to decide. I like it that way for example.
> (If you do both on a 16 color terminal there's literally no way to get
> bold #0 using the defaults. That's silly.)
Right, except that urxvt (and almost every non-pc terminal) isn't a 16
colour terminal but an 8 colour one, with the xterm 88 colour extension.
> Some terminals do this, some do not (konsole, st). There's solid precedent
> for urxvt to switch to the more sane default.
"precedent"? I am not sure you are using this word correctly.
konsole for example originally was incompatible to any existing
terminal. If that sets a precedent, then clearly it's a precedent on how
not to do it for existing terminals with a long history.
> I posit that this "feature" should be off by default, or at the very least
> it should be off by default when boldFont is used.
And your evidence to support this is...?
I can understand that you are frustrated because you didn't read or find
the option in the documentation, but let's not overreact.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
