[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: (type graphic)

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: (type graphic)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:55:22 +0200 (IST)

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Miles Bader wrote:

> Well, what you seemed to be asking is that it not match `(type tty)'
> because there are currently too many defface entries that make invalid
> assumptions about ttys.

Yes.  But I'm asking not to do that for defface only, and only 
temporarily, for v21.1.  After that, we can consider this issue 
and solve it in a clean fashion.

> The code example I gave satisfies both these constraints.

I don't think it's a good idea to introduce mysterious clauses into the 
code just to solve an ad-hoc problem.  Let's leave things as they were 
before, and revisit this after v21.1 is released.  We both agree that 
counting supported colors is the way to solve this problem; Gerd also 
said that his is a good idea.  Let's not introduce ad-hoc'ery to solve
this one notch too soon.

What adverse effects will we see if we back out that change?  I didn't 
yet see any defface that uses (type graphic).

reply via email to

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