Re: Initial fontification in sh-mode with tree-sittter

[Stefan Kangas]

João Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho <jaopaulolc@gmail.com> writes:

> +(defface sh-mode--treesit-special-var-name-face
> +  '((t (:inherit font-lock-builtin-face)))
> +  "Face name to use for special `sh-mode' variables (e.g. PATH)")
> +
> +(defface sh-mode--treesit-operator-face
> +  '((t (:inherit font-lock-builtin-face)))
> +  "Face name to use for `sh-mode' operators (e.g. <<)")
> +
> +(defface sh-mode--treesit-call-face
> +  '((t (:inherit font-lock-function-name-face)))
> +  "Face name to use for `sh-mode' non-builtin command calls")

Are those faces really needed?  Is it not enough with just the
font-lock-* faces we already have?

If the answer is that we do need them, should they really be marked
private?  I thought the point of a face was allowing users and themes to
customize them.