[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[AUCTeX-devel] Re: Fontifying of titles...

From: Reiner Steib
Subject: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Fontifying of titles...
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:12:45 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

On Sat, Apr 09 2005, Ralf Angeli wrote:

> * Reiner Steib (2005-04-09) writes:
>> On Sat, Apr 09 2005, Ralf Angeli wrote:
>>> I could imagine that we will rather get complaints that users who
>>> dislike the 'height fontification now have to change eight faces
>>> instead of four,
>> They wouldn't have to.  We should rather consider
>> `font-latex-title-N-face' (N < MAX) as internal faces not intended to
>> be customized by the user.  Customizing `font-latex-title-fontify'
>> and/or `font-latex-title-MAX-face' should be sufficient for the vast
>> majority.
> Yes, probably.  Are you sure this will work with XEmacs?  

At least the customizable factor (`font-latex-title-fontify') should

> It does not support :inherit in face definitions.  But maybe we
> could code around that by means of `set-face-parent'.

Probably you are more familiar with this (I didn't follow the
font-latex related discussions on xemacs-beta closely).  I don't even
have XEmacs here at home to look at the doc string of

>> ,----[ M-x customize-face RET font-latex-title-3-face RET ]
>> [...] 
>> | Probably you don't want to customize this face directly.  Better
>> | change the face `font-latex-title-7-face' or customize the
>> | variable `font-latex-title-fontify'.
>> `----
>> I think we should add the references to `font-latex-title-MAX-face'
>> and `font-latex-title-fontify' no matter if we keep four faces or not.
> Yep, but only after this is working with XEmacs.

If not, we can mention it in the doc string.  In general, I wouldn't
like to make the AUCTeX behave worse in Emacs because of shortcomings
in XEmacs.

>> The mapping of eight LaTeX sectioning level to four fonts (based on
>> `Info-title-N-face') is quite arbitrary:
>> 1 - \part \chapter
>> 2 - \section
>> 3 - \subsection
>> 4 - \subsubsection \paragraph \subparagraph \subsubparagraph
>> Why *should* \part and \chapter or all the title-4 sections be
>> displayed with the same face in the first place?  Given your previous
>> concerns about \section and \subsection being indistinguishable, I
>> don't quite understand that you don't want to have more than four
>> faces.
> For me the distinction on these low levels is not as important as the
> one between the higer levels.  When scrolling through the buffer I
> mainly want to be able to distinguish chapters and sections easily.

This is not a feature of the current implementation but merely
accidental because of your font setup.  If a user wants this, he can
increase the scale in the face corresponding to \chapter (that should
be sufficient, I think).

> While I did not implement this four-level scheme, I like it somewhat
> because of that.  And I am a bit concerned about adding even more
> complexity to the code.

Changing the count in `dotimes' isn't really adding complexity to the
code in my book.  :-)

> In the case at hand it would not be such a big deal because the
> faces are generated anyway; it is just that feeling of "Do we really
> need this many faces?".

>From a user's point of view they can be considered as "internal",
(usually) not intended to be customized.

>> Evaluating defface doesn't change already defined faces.  (The
>> current code doesn't give any hint that changing this variable
>> doesn't take immediate effect.)
> Could we work with `set-face-attribute' or something like this?

Probably.  I didn't try it yet.

Did you actually try my patch?  Any problems with the resulting
display?  Maybe with an increased scale for the \chapter face?

Bye, Reiner.
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]