> You mean "invis"? We already have it in st.info. However this is a good
Yes, I was talking about invis. I didn't remember that we already
have it, although we didn't have implemented it. In fact, in the last
actualization of central terminfo, Thomas E. Dickey removed this
capability from our definition for this reason.
> "dim" for the faint one, and I can't find anything for struck and
I didn't know anything about this capability, but it seems match with
the definition of faint of the patch.
I think we don't have to modify any of the other definitions (for example
sgr or setf), but I will checked.
Regards,
--
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Received on Wed Jun 25 2014 - 20:20:18 CEST