> After trying it out for a while, I think I can't root for "common=bold,
> firstdiff=underline" any more because in the basic/prefix-completion
> case the firstdiff chars end up drowned by the previous bold common
> prefix and the underlines: it's noticeable less legible IMO.
Just nullify the firstdiff face and it becomes better! And you still
"see" the first diff via very advanced visual differentiation
techniques available today in most mammal's brains.
> I'm no big fan of "common=blue3-background firstdiff=bold" but it might
> be the least bad option for now: for the basic/prefix-completion it's
Surely you jest, or you inverse-video the "common" font or you put
something in the foreground, because black on blue3 is illegible.
> BTW, what do "typical" other systems use as highlight for the
> common part? Is there enough agreement there that it's worth trying to
> pay attention to it (kinda like the "blue" for hyperlink convention)?
Company uses the same face for flex and common, a drab red
that is barely visible against the default yellow. But it's consistent.
Textmate used to use bold. I bet Sublime text and other still use
it, but probably I'll lose that bet.