[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions
From: |
Davis Herring |
Subject: |
RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:34:39 -0800 (PST) |
User-agent: |
SquirrelMail/1.4.8-5.el5_4.10.lanl3 |
>> Having D copy from B is equivalent to having them both
>> inherit from a new face A with B's previous definition.
>
> It is certainly not equivalent.
> Just customize A to see the difference.
But A didn't exist before, so that's a new feature, not a difference per
se. If we wanted, we could prevent the user from even knowing about A
(have `customize-face' not support it), and they would be equivalent. So
surely this is better...?
>> With the inheritance, the user does have the option
>> to change both of them at once if desired.
>
> Precisely why they are not equivalent. Read the thread, if you have not
> already, for why inheritance is not the be-all and end-all.
I'm quite surprised that you didn't leap at this idea. Since when is
offering the user a choice a bad thing? If they don't want to customize
A, they won't, and they'll then have exactly the same set of options that
the copying idea would give them.
Now, I must say that I've realized an imperfection in my idea: if Emacs
defines D but not B (and thus no one bothers to make A), an external
package that defines B must either inherit from D or copy-paste its
definition. But faces in Emacs that seem worthy of inheritance by anyone
may be mechanically transformed into D-A pairs to avoid the problem.
>> And we already have inheritance.
>
> Hammer...nail.
David J. Wheeler might disagree. (And you were talking about how it might
be non-trivial to implement the copying idea.)
Davis
--
This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, (continued)
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Drew Adams, 2011/02/06
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Tim Cross, 2011/02/06
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Drew Adams, 2011/02/07
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Tim Cross, 2011/02/07
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Drew Adams, 2011/02/07
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Tim Cross, 2011/02/07
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Drew Adams, 2011/02/08
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Philipp Haselwarter, 2011/02/08
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Davis Herring, 2011/02/08
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Drew Adams, 2011/02/08
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions,
Davis Herring <=
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Drew Adams, 2011/02/08
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Lennart Borgman, 2011/02/08
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Davis Herring, 2011/02/08
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Tim Cross, 2011/02/06
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/02/03
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, John Yates, 2011/02/03
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/02/04
- Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Jambunathan K, 2011/02/03
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Drew Adams, 2011/02/05
- RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/02/06