>Although
>it is quite possible to allow color configurations as args, resources,
>etc., I'd prefer not to do so.
Agreed.
>Would it be sufficient to add a field to
>the color rule configuration to allow selection of a color in the case that
>color rules could not be resolved(just as one can select default fg and bg)?
>In a similar fashion, what about allowing fg and bg color selection for
>"not connected" to be available as part of the "modify display attributes"?
Sounds good.
If it makes life easier, the color for non-resolution of a color rule could
be available in "modify display attributes" instead of per color rule.
Either way would be fine.
++ steph
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: "dm" and Access Security Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Omissions in 3.12.2 Bill Brown
- Index:
1994
1995
<1996>
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: EPICS Access Security Andrew Johnson
- Next:
"dm" and Access Security Andy Foster
- Index:
1994
1995
<1996>
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|