[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch |
Date: |
Fri, 7 May 2004 21:39:40 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:20:33PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >> This specification uses the first face in the list, NEW-FACE, last. I
> >> think it should use these faces in the order they appear.
>
> It should work the same way as when a list of faces is specified in the
> `face' property, shouldn't it ?
>
> I think we're saying the same thing in different words.
I'm not sure.
The code currently uses the same function that face-inheritance uses (a
face's :inherit attribute may be a list). Unfortunately, the manner in which
that works is the _opposite_ of how a list of faces in a face property works.
* In a face property, a list of faces is interpreted so that earlier faces in
the list _override_ later faces in the list.
* In an face-inheritance list, _later_ faces override earlier faces.
E.g., for a face property, the following face list:
(variable-pitch fixed pitch)
will result in the display being `variable-pitch', but if the _same_ list
occurs in a face-inheritance property, the display will use `fixed-pitch'!
I'm not sure what to do about this; both behaviors kind of make sense. The
:inherit behavior is somewhat closer to the implementation -- it just says
`merge these faces one by one' -- whereas perhaps the face-property behavior
of preferring earlier faces could seem more natural when viewed abstractly,
but is actually a bit more of a pain to implement (it uses recursion to apply
the face list in reverse order).
Use the same code as the face-property for `face-remapping-alist' would have
the advantage that you could use other `magic' face-property values for free,
e.g. directly embedded attributes like (:foreground "green"), but if that
were the case maybe the name `face-remapping-alist' would be slightly wrong?
Along the same lines, perhaps one or the other of the two existing types of
face-lists should be changed to be consistant with the other -- but which
one?
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
-Miles
--
Would you like fries with that?
- +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Miles Bader, 2004/05/04
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/05
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Miles Bader, 2004/05/05
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/06
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/07
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/09
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/09
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/09
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/09
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/10
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/10
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Miles Bader, 2004/05/10
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/11
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Miles Bader, 2004/05/11
- Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch, Kevin Rodgers, 2004/05/11