Re: [PATCH 4/5] grep: Colorize filename, line number, and separator

[Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 14:14, Mark Lodato <lodatom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:43 AM, René Scharfe
> <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
>> Am 27.02.2010 05:57, schrieb Mark Lodato:
>>> 1. With --name-only, GNU grep colors the filenames, but we do not.  I do
>>>    not see any point to making everything the same color.
>>
>> I guess they did it for consistency, so when you see "magenta" you think
>> "filename", and because it can be turned off with a switch.  With your
>> patch all filenames are coloured the same, too, by the way: using the
>> default foreground colour. :)
>
> Yes, I think I understand the reasoning, but to me it is very
> annoying.  However, if there is a consensus that we should follow GNU
> grep in this regard, I will do it.

I'm in favor of colorizing the output even when just one piece of
information is presented. If I turn on colorization, then there should
be colorization; my brain would expect it, especially when I first
grep without --name-only and then turn on --name-only after getting
results that I like.

Of course, I bet you find colorizing the filenames a nuisance because
you don't care to pipe the relevant escape sequences to other
commands. On that note, it would be nice to have something like GNU's
--color=(auto|yes|no) with `auto' as the default for a plain --color.

As a compromise (and perhaps as an improvement), perhaps only the
basename of the filename should be colorized when --name-only is used;
that way, colorization is still being used to differentiate different
data, and the rest of the path is usually not that interesting anyway.
However, for consistency, I would still think it wise to colorize the
dirname portion with `color.grep.filename', but color the basename
portion with `color.grep.match' (as though the basename portion is the
text being matched).

Sincerely,
Michael Witten