bug#60841: 30.0.50; kill-ring-save pauses despite region being highlighted

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  60841@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 23:03:32 +0100
> 
> Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> writes:
> 
> >>>> But it would be better to have there a test which would tell us whether 
> >>>> the
> >>>> region face is "visually different" from the default face. Can we do
> >>>> something like that?
> >>>
> >>> face-differs-from-default-p?
> >>
> >> Nice catch; IIUC display-supports-face-attributes-p is what is doing the 
> >> heavy
> >> work.
> >>
> >> Might need to be made smarter wrt :extend though?
> >>
> >
> > Indeed...
> >
> >>
> >> (set-face-background 'region (face-background 'default nil t))
> >> (face-differs-from-default-p 'region nil)
> >> ; ⇒ :extend
> >>
> >
> > ... although that's a really contrived example.
> 
> OK, how about this example:
> 
> >   (defun mtmm-reset-background ()
> >     (set-face-attribute 'region nil :background 'unspecified))
> 
> Straight from <87vfjhre9z.fsf@zamazal.org> (emacs-devel), i.e. the user
> report which resulted in the current code in indicate-copied-region.
> 
> Same result: :extend differs, so (face-differs-from-default-p 'region)
> returns t, which for this user would cause a regression compared to
> (face-background 'region nil t).
> 
> > I'm not sure it's TRT to add too much complexity there, so I would suggest 
> > to
> > add an additional optional argument to face-differs-from-default-p, to 
> > exclude
> > one or more attributes from the comparison (in this case :extend, but 
> > someone
> > else might be interested in excluding other attributes in the future).
> 
> I really think how face-differs-from-default-p examines attributes…
> 
>               (and
>                (not (eq attr-val 'unspecified))
>                (display-supports-face-attributes-p (list attr attr-val)
>                                                    frame))
> 
> … makes no sense for :extend.  Here's an example (and this one is
> contrived alright):
> 
>   (set-face-attribute 'default nil :underline t)
>   (set-face-attribute 'region nil :underline nil :extend VALUE)
> 
> * VALUE is 'unspecified: the condition becomes nil (meaning ":extend
>   does not make this face look different than default"), whereas that
>   actually _does_ make a difference (:underline nil too, obviously, and
>   luckily face-differs-from-default-p picks up on this),
> 
> * VALUE is nil: (display-supports-face-attributes-p '(:extend nil))
>   returns nil (because see gui_supports_face_attributes_p), despite
>   :extend nil procuding different results for :underline.
> 
> * VALUE is t: for the same reason, display-supports-face-attributes-p
>   returns t, despite :extend t making :underline indistinguishable from
>   the default face.
> 
> Granted, yeah, contrived, since that calls for :underline t on the
> default face and who does that.
> 
> But since, as we've seen, :extend causes a false positive (face reported
> as "displaying differently" despite displaying identically) when a face
> has a :background equal to the default's, I don't see how the current
> behaviour helps anyone.

Sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are proposing.