[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Emacs-trunk-diffs] Changes to emacs/lisp/faces.el

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [Emacs-trunk-diffs] Changes to emacs/lisp/faces.el
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:01:51 +0200

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Juri Linkov <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:53:43 +0200
> "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:
> > Please don't use `(type pc)' in face definitions; we now have the
> > min-colors feature to express the same color selection in a more
> > device-independent way (e.g., it will also be right for a 16-color
> > xterm).
> OK.  But then `minibuffer-prompt' face whose definition was copied to
> `escape-glyph' should be fixed too:

No, the minibuffer-prompt face is one of the few cases where the
literal `pc' is deliberate.  It so happens that many users of the
MS-DOS port use blue as their default foreground color.

Sorry for not mentioning such exceptions in my original message.

> The idea was to make escape-glyph to look like comments

I'm not sure that was a good idea, since comments normally have a face
that makes them stand out.  I thought that several people complained
about ^L being too glaring.  But I didn't follow the discussion
closely, so perhaps I missed the reason for selecting such a color for

> +(defface escape-glyph
> +  '((((class color) (min-colors 88) (background light))
> +     :foreground "dark red")
> +    (((class color) (min-colors 88) (background dark))
> +     :foreground "tan1")
> +    (((class color) (min-colors 8))
> +     :foreground "red"))
> +  "Face for characters displayed as ^-sequences or \\-sequences."
>    :group 'basic-faces)

This is okay with me, assuming that the consensus is indeed to have
escape-glyph stand out in color.

reply via email to

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