[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: facemenu-unlisted-faces

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: facemenu-unlisted-faces
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:03:36 +0900

"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:
> And, partly for precisely the issue you raise, it is, in general, not a good
> idea to have faces (e.g. `bold', `fixed-pitch') whose names claim a certain
> appearance. Face names like `dired-flagged' communicate what the face is
> for, they don't communicate how it looks; they are in the Emphasis camp, not
> the Bold camp.

"bold", so far as I know, exists mainly for historical reasons.

Faces like "fixed-pitch" exist because they offer a useful abstraction
(some places really need a fixed-pitch face, to display a table or
whatever), and consolidate a common bit of user-specific configuration
data (_which_ fixed-pitch face to use) into a single face (many other
places may indeed also define their own face, and inherit from

`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
 that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
 less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.'  [The Economist]

reply via email to

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