Re: Font-lock.el uses strange value for min-colors (Was x-display-color-cells returns wrong number)

[Miles Bader]

"Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:
> when I work on Irix, I generally like to use the Irix-specific colors
> (that are not shown by list-colors-display, of course) because they
> are much more pleasant to my eyes.  So to me, those unshown colors are
> much more ``interesting'' than those we show, in that specific case.

If you can come up with a reasonable list of `irix colors' that seems
appropriate, feel free (modulo code-bloat/why-are-we-spending-
time-worrying-about-silly-things-like-this issues)...

> Bottom line is, I think list-colors-display should display colors
> whose number is close to what Emacs can use on that display, except
> that it probably shouldn't be too long (so I don't suggest to display
> 64K colors, for example).

There are only a few important cases in practice -- monochrome,
low-color (e.g. 8 color) displays, 256-color (8 bit) displays, and
everything else.  The current behavior seems to be basically same as
what you want for most common displays; if you really care, I suppose
you could look into making it work well in other rarer cases (but I
suppose that you probably don't care enough).

> Perhaps a short comment to the effect that
> we are showing only N out of possible M colors would be good there.

Yes, that would be handy; perhaps it could also mention using the
`#rrggbb' notation to get colors not displayed in the list.

This change would be simple and I think probably good enough.

-Miles
-- 
97% of everything is grunge