TextMate has a syntax element called "Embedded Source", which is used for things like the lstlisting environment in LaTeX or JavaScript code embedded in HTML. The default background color for this element is a light blue, which is almost identical to the light blue used for selected text. Because of the similarity, I always get confused and think I've inadvertently selected some embedded source. I'm wondering why there is such a similarity between these colors. Was it deliberate (and if so, what was the reason?) or was this an oversight?
Trevor
Trevor,
It probably depends on which theme you are using, the theme I use does not have this problem. It was almost certainly an oversight. The bundles and themes are not necessarily developed by the same people and the theme developers probably don't use all the various languages.
If you don't like it, its very easy to go change the colors in the Fonts & Colors preference panel.
Brad
On Feb 27, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Trevor Harmon wrote:
TextMate has a syntax element called "Embedded Source", which is used for things like the lstlisting environment in LaTeX or JavaScript code embedded in HTML. The default background color for this element is a light blue, which is almost identical to the light blue used for selected text. Because of the similarity, I always get confused and think I've inadvertently selected some embedded source. I'm wondering why there is such a similarity between these colors. Was it deliberate (and if so, what was the reason?) or was this an oversight?
Trevor
For new threads USE THIS: textmate@lists.macromates.com (threading gets destroyed and the universe will collapse if you don't) http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate
On Feb 27, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Allan Odgaard wrote:
Personally I would welcome suggestions for a new Embedded Source color for the Mac Classic theme!
How about simply removing it? I noticed that some of the other themes don't specify anything for Embedded Source.
By the way, does the name "Mac Classic" imply that this color scheme is somehow based on traditional Mac editors? If so, do these editors also specify a light blue color for embedded source?
Trevor
On 28/2/2006, at 0:22, Trevor Harmon wrote:
Personally I would welcome suggestions for a new Embedded Source color for the Mac Classic theme!
How about simply removing it? I noticed that some of the other themes don't specify anything for Embedded Source.
I do like having colors for embedded code, mostly when these are small units scattered across the page. The All Hallows Eve theme though works much better for this.
By the way, does the name "Mac Classic" imply that this color scheme is somehow based on traditional Mac editors? If so, do these editors also specify a light blue color for embedded source?
I think Chris Thomas named the theme this, and he’s also responsible for majority of the colors, plus one of the few who did work with Mac Classic -- but I think the name was more a jest toward the very non- Mac (classic) colors used in the other themes ;)
By the way, does the name "Mac Classic" imply that this color scheme is somehow based on traditional Mac editors?
More or less, yes. The white background and the saturated blue keyword color, at least.
If so, do these editors also specify a light blue color for embedded source?
TextMate is the first Mac editor of any vintage capable of supporting embedded source, as far as I'm aware.
I'd be totally happy for someone to say "thou shalt use _this_ color for embedded source backgrounds in Mac Classic." I did intend to revisit that color, but haven't gotten back to it. Better suggestions always welcome.
Chris
hi,
been looking around at the site but can't find any info how the plain text coloring is working. Just noticed in the release notes that [NEW] and [REVISION x] etc does some quite nice coloring.
As I always write my TODO's, WORKPLAN's etc in plain text it would be nice if I knew how to adapt to get stuff like
TODO ----
turn into what you get when typing [REVISION 2]
etc.
/d
On 6/3/2006, at 18:02, David Eriksson wrote:
been looking around at the site but can't find any info how the plain text coloring is working.
It’s documented here: <http://macromates.com/textmate/manual/ language_grammars>
The Plain Text language grammar is in the Text bundle. You probably want to duplicate it, and make your changes to the duplicate, or likely create a new which include the text.plain language -- that way, should the plain text grammar be updated, your augmented grammar will still see these updates.
Hi, Mac Classic theme users.
I don't use this theme myself, but am about to record an AppleScript screencast, and want to stick with something simple and straightforward.
So... a year ago, there was this nice discussion:
Trevor Harmon wrote (on 2/27/06!):
TextMate has a syntax element called "Embedded Source", which is used for things like the lstlisting environment in LaTeX or JavaScript code embedded in HTML. The default background color for this element is a light blue, which is almost identical to the light blue used for selected text. Because of the similarity, I always get confused and think I've inadvertently selected some embedded source. I'm wondering why there is such a similarity between these colors. Was it deliberate (and if so, what was the reason?) or was this an oversight?
Allan Odgaard wrote (on 2/27/06):
Plus most of us are coders, hence stylistically challenged :)
Personally I would welcome suggestions for a new Embedded Source color for the Mac Classic theme!
Chris Thomas wrote (on 2/28/06):
TextMate is the first Mac editor of any vintage capable of supporting embedded source, as far as I'm aware.
I'd be totally happy for someone to say "thou shalt use _this_ color for embedded source backgrounds in Mac Classic." I did intend to revisit that color, but haven't gotten back to it. Better suggestions always welcome.
Well, I didn't change the 'embedded source' background color, as I don't want to impose my aesthetic vision on a theme I don't even use. But what I *did* do instead was triple the saturation of the selection color, simultaneously dropping its opacity by 2/3. This means that it should look identical against a white background, but should be considerably more noticeable against the light blue 'embedded source' background.
Enjoy!
-Jacob Rus
On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Jacob Rus wrote:
Well, I didn't change the 'embedded source' background color, as I don't want to impose my aesthetic vision on a theme I don't even use. But what I *did* do instead was triple the saturation of the selection color, simultaneously dropping its opacity by 2/3. This means that it should look identical against a white background, but should be considerably more noticeable against the light blue 'embedded source' background.
OK, I just now changed the embedded color to light gray, a change I've had locally for a while. I think the translucency is still worthwhile, because you can see the embedded background.
It's not quite identical against white, FWIW.
Chris
Chris Thomas wrote:
OK, I just now changed the embedded color to light gray, a change I've had locally for a while. I think the translucency is still worthwhile, because you can see the embedded background.
It's not quite identical against white, FWIW.
Okay. I didn't actually measure: just typed in approximate numbers. I'm sure we could make it exact if desired :).
Chris Thomas wrote:
OK, I just now changed the embedded color to light gray, a change I've had locally for a while. I think the translucency is still worthwhile, because you can see the embedded background.
Is there a particular reason to make it so light it's almost imperceptible? I wonder, do you maybe have your monitor set to a 2.2 display gamma? Because with the default Mac 1.8 display gamma, I have to squint to notice difference at all! (for my screencasts, I'm going to darken this, but in general I don't care all that much, not personally using the theme, as I mentioned before--I'm just curious :)
-Jacob
On Mar 18, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Jacob Rus wrote:
Chris Thomas wrote:
OK, I just now changed the embedded color to light gray, a change I've had locally for a while. I think the translucency is still worthwhile, because you can see the embedded background.
Is there a particular reason to make it so light it's almost imperceptible? I wonder, do you maybe have your monitor set to a 2.2 display gamma? Because with the default Mac 1.8 display gamma, I have to squint to notice difference at all! (for my screencasts, I'm going to darken this, but in general I don't care all that much, not personally using the theme, as I mentioned before--I'm just curious :)
If it needs additional darkening, please go ahead and check in whatever you find perceptible. I use 1.8, and it looks highly perceptible to me, but my main LCD has a very bright backlight.
Chris
-
Allan Odgaard -
Brad Miller -
Chris Thomas -
David Eriksson -
Jacob Rus -
Trevor Harmon