Re: [PATCH] allow user-configurable menucolor

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:42:01AM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 January 2008 13:47, Robert Millan wrote:
> > This patch allows the following to work:
> >
> >   set color_normal=cyan/blue
> >   set color_highlight=white/blue
> 
> Although I am not a native speaker, I feel that they should be better 
> called "normal_color" and "highlight_color".

I like to come up with names that share their prefix, because this makes
the set more readable:

set color_normal=cyan/blue
set color_highlight=white/blue
set normal_color=cyan/blue
set highlight_color=white/blue

In the first one the "color_" section is easier to identify.  Althogh I
don't feel strongly about this of course :-)

> > which is equivalent to this command in GRUB Legacy:
> >
> >   color cyan/blue white/blue
> >
> > I haven't written a ChangeLog entry yet, because I'd like to receive
> > comments on the function names.  I don't really like
> > `parse_single_color_name' and `parse_color_name' but I don't know what to
> > call them :-(.  What conventions are there for referring to single colors
> > (i.e. those that describe only FG or only BG, not both) and complete colors
> > (FG + BG) ?
> 
> No such word, AFAIK. You know, it is ugly, because you want to put two 
> separate things into one place. ;)
> 
> Just look at CSS...
> 
> div {
>   color: black;
>   background-color: white;
> }
> 
> So, if you don't hesitate to create so many variables, you can simply 
> create "normal_color", "normal_background_color", "highlight_color" 
> and "highlight_background_color", although I don't know who would like it.

Sounds like this could save us some code space.  I'd go for _fg and _bg to
preserve alignment in the names.

-- 
Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)