Bug#379839: vim: Bogus color schema

[James Vega]

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 <jamessan at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-vim-maintainers/attachments/20061204/e0cd0f7c/attachment.pgp