Re: cannot understand Elisp manual node Glyphs

[Kim F. Storm]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>> These functions are handy:
>>
>> (defun make-glyph-with-face (c face)
>>   "Return a glyph code representing char C with face FACE."
>>   (logior c (lsh (face-id face) 19)))
>
> Good idea, but why not just call it "make-glyph"...?

Because Xemacs already has a function named make-glyph with
different semantics.

But maybe we don't need to care about that?

Maybe the face arg should be optional, and we could use the
following names to avoid confusion:

make-display-glyph (char &optional face)
display-glyph-face (glyph)
display-glyph-char (glyph)


-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk