[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default

From: João Távora
Subject: Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:54:17 +0000

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:43 PM Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> wrote:

> >  > There is no formula for calculating how distinguishable two different
> >  > text colors on the same background are.
> >
> > I would say that the next best thing is to calculate the contrast
> > difference between two colors period.
> >
> > blue4 vs black is 1.27
> > blue3 vs black is 1.87
> >
> > So very good for reading the text, very bad for distinguishing
> > the colors in two adjacent letters.
> I don't know if it works like that.

This measures the contrast between two colors. We agree on
that. You can place the thresholds for each use case (reading on a
background, distinguishing nearby objects) where you like them,
and that's indeed subjective.

Anyhoo, you yourself admitted in the other mail that blue4 vs
black would lead to "squinting".  So I think it really does work
more or less like that.

> It's a really pretty color, but if the goal is choosing a "not
> in-your-face" option, it fails that condition for the above reason.

Thank you for the faith in my asthetic sensibilities :-), but
naturally,  in-your-faceness is not something we can objectively

> To reiterate something I said in another email: if flex stops using
> common-part where it does now, company-capf will become confused.

Then teach company-capf to use `completions-emphasis` and
`completions-secondary-emphasis`.  I think I coded the part
where it sniffs for the common-part (didn't I?), I can make it sniff
for other stuff (and write tests and all).


reply via email to

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