[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#3210: face customization fails after set-face-attribute

From: Drew Adams
Subject: bug#3210: face customization fails after set-face-attribute
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:12:58 -0700

> > (set-face-attribute 'default nil :height 130 :family "Lucida Grande")
> > ;; modifies default face
> >
> > (customize-face 'default)
> > ;; switch back manually to Monaco and "set for current session"
> >
> > (make-frame-command)  ;; C-x 5 2
> > ;; the new frame is shown in Lucida.  Why?
> I have edited the docstring of set-face-attribute, to make it clearer
> that this function overrides face specs.

Huh?  You baptize the bugged behvior as design by documenting it as intended?
No one intended or intends such behavior, AFAIK.  It is just an unfortunate,
unintended side effect of some implementation changes that someone made.  IOW, a

And why close bug #3408 at the same time?  That bugged behavior remains.  And it
is a regression from the behavior in Emacs 22 (and 21 and 20 and...).

As I said in the #3408 thread, and to which there was no reply: 

| Customize is for changing user preferences, and those apply most
| importantly to future use, not just to existing objects.
| If Customize becomes just about repainting what's there already,
| then Customize is no longer about customizing.
| That is a ridiculous workaround, just to get a face change for
| future frames: save, end the session, new session to get where you
| wanted to be.  Then restore the definition, save again, and exit,
| so your change lasted only for the "macro-session" (split into two
| sessions, just for the workaround).
| What was wrong with what we had before? What problem does this
| significant change solve?
| *Any* way of changing a face (or an option, for that matter) should
| affect it for the future.

If you do not have the time now to fix a particular bug (a regression, no less),
then classify it as `wishlist'.  If you do not want to fix a bug, ever, then
classify it as `wont-fix'.

But please do not classify it for such reasons as `notabug'.  A bug is a bug.
It is not the same as intentional design.  Emacs Dev made implementation changes
in Emacs 23 that broke things.  If you will not fix them then `wont-fix' is the
right category.

Or if you really claim that this is a design change, then be clear to users:
document it generally for Customize:

  In the case of faces, Customize is about repainting what's
  there already.  It is not about customizing for the future.
  The advantages of this exception for faces are...

And add that design change to the NEWS (for Emacs 23), as a new "feature".

reply via email to

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