 | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I won't make any guarantees, but there's a reasonably high probability that I won't even try to support the above, even if it's what the spec says in the end. It's too much of a pain. Additionally, it disallows further expansion of the colour (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) How about NAME? (...) I don't see a problem with this. Steve or Jacob? -Orion (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Disregard the NAME suggestion. I'm brain dead today. -Orion (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I don't think so. What if CODE is part of the color name? I can't think of a quick example for that, but other key words are easy. AlphaTeamRed, BlueChrome... I'll support color names with no space characters, and I'll consider supporting (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I would prefer that spaces not be allowed in the color name as well. However, the spec does say that all the keywords are case sensitive (must be all caps), and I believe the original suggestion was that keywords by themselves with spaces (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, the spec says just the opposite, that tags (keywords) are not case-sensitive: (...) That seems reasonable. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I don't want to specify that some parameters are order-specific, and others aren't. I'd rather they are all one way or the other. Goes back to easier 'correct' parsing. However, I'm sure the entries in ldconfig.ldr will always have their tags (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Whoops. Silly me. It's amazing the tricks memory can play on you ;-). (...) While this is still probably do-able, I think my original argument about the possible creation of future tags still holds (unless you're also agreeing to the enforced (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
