Re: new text property

[Kai Großjohann]

Hrvoje Niksic <address@hidden> writes:

> Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Don't get hung up on the traditional conflation of the font-lock UI
>> with the mechanism used to implement it; it's really not necessary.
>
> Why not?  Font-lock is not only about the hairy regexps that implement
> it; it's also about respecting the settings for font-lock-*-face and
> variables such as font-lock-maximum-decoration,
> font-lock-auto-fontify, font-lock-maximum-size, etc.  A highlighting
> mechanism that doesn't respect any of those has no reason to be bound
> by `M-x font-lock-mode' either.

I guess the idea is to do all of this.

But maybe it is not so important to use the font-lock-*-faces.  After
all, if there is a language which does not have comments, then it is
natural that font-lock-comment-face is not used.  The same argument
can be repeated for other font-lock-*-faces.

In a Gnus article buffer, for example, none of the predefined faces
really catch the semantics of anything that's displayed in the buffer.

There is also precedence for using other faces: cperl-mode uses a
cperl-hash-face, for instance, in addition to the standard
font-lock-*-faces.

kai
-- 
~/.signature is: umop 3p!sdn    (Frank Nobis)