[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Note on e65c307 breaks font-height

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Note on e65c307 breaks font-height
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:52:09 +0300

> Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 11:48:10 +0200
> From: martin rudalics <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
>  > IOW, the font selection code was not designed to support what you'd
>  > like, not in general.  That is why I strongly recommend to just state
>  > a specific font of your liking, and move on.
> What I did (in the previous century, IIRC) was to select the procedure
> that I then considered best supported by the customization interface.
> Can you point me to a similar interface for the step you propose?  IOW,
> I still think that mine is the way a newbie would use.

I don't understand why we are talking about customization interfaces.
I thought the problem was that requesting a font by specifying some of
its attributes doesn't work.  Now I'm confused: what problem is at

>  >   -- Function: face-attribute face attribute &optional frame inherit
>  >       This function returns the value of the ATTRIBUTE attribute for FACE
>  >       on FRAME.
>  >
>  > And all the other functions in that node accept the FRAME argument.
> IIUC none of these bear any relation to the customization interface.

"M-x customize-face" changes the face definitions on all frames, but
you can invoke set-face-attribute with a specific frame to change the
face only on that frame.

> And I still don't see where the customization framework allows or
> suggests to specifiy a face for a frame or for "any" frame.

I don't think it does.

In any case, it looks like a simple question of mine led us aside for
no good reason.  Whether faces are or aren't per frame has nothing to
do with the problem at hand.

reply via email to

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