From unknown Fri Jun 20 07:21:48 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#13686 <13686@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#13686 <13686@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 24.3.50; Re-look hi-lock-face-defaults (aka Provide more "core" faces for highlighting) Reply-To: bug#13686 <13686@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:21:48 +0000 retitle 13686 24.3.50; Re-look hi-lock-face-defaults (aka Provide more "cor= e" faces for highlighting) reassign 13686 emacs submitter 13686 Jambunathan K severity 13686 wishlist thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 11 01:15:26 2013 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2013 06:15:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49700 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U4mfl-0004XG-60 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:15:26 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56943) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U4mfh-0004X7-29 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:15:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4mfM-0000WS-MV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:15:02 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, T_DKIM_INVALID, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:37589) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4mfM-0000WO-Cd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:15:00 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40068) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4mfK-0008D8-J2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:15:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4mfI-0000Vv-P9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:14:58 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:52329) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4mfI-0000Vi-ED for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:14:56 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id kp6so2946859pab.8 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:14:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; bh=pSk46aDuoMTbHv/Po/jrtf9Je5zMruyb0gl6VstpA00=; b=ieKGEn9oVJNBh4O/fR+ZZ+jTXQuP9hnYsY613QJuLLGVD2RV1vj+NR5wVBZ7/PzTlq 8eI3oc854Cz2IgY94MbmBBKnM3aJwBcmNpOathRj9n3HHedVFrmgy+AM5JI+j0b3lohF G/WMGpcCjh8gcjbFDXXb4pYHfeSYwlDWpESiGuN4Bqxqp60rhMjnLQgx9YTfR5hwGddd lFzvRT1hFix7Ru6tbplH7hfSmdD6pG/e9hFnkzAsjHybD/qou9pnKsYRI8wg9ndF9UlR O0OdBDRyrJ+tk8sGVa/xO5hvqfKGipspRBeKtHNyl+oL/OHaEBxEakD0kCWw6lEsfdaj 4paw== X-Received: by 10.66.226.71 with SMTP id rq7mr21460821pac.80.1360563294797; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:14:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.62.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id it8sm6633028pbc.9.2013.02.10.22.14.51 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:14:54 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 24.3.50; Re-look hi-lock-face-defaults (aka Provide more "core" faces for highlighting) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:44:28 +0530 Message-ID: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) Spun-off from http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=11095 Bug pertains to the variables mentioned below. (CAUTION: Don't look at the bug, you will be lost) ,---- | (defvar hi-lock-face-defaults | '("hi-yellow" "hi-pink" "hi-green" "hi-blue" "hi-black-b" | "hi-blue-b" "hi-red-b" "hi-green-b" "hi-black-hb") | "Default faces for hi-lock interactive functions.") `---- ,---- | (defface hi-yellow | '((((min-colors 88) (background dark)) | (:background "yellow1" :foreground "black")) | (((background dark)) (:background "yellow" :foreground "black")) | (((min-colors 88)) (:background "yellow1")) | (t (:background "yellow"))) | "Default face for hi-lock mode." | :group 'hi-lock-faces) `---- Proposal in Elisp ----------------- My proposals amounted to this patch and http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?msg=8;filename=bug11095-part1.patch;att=1;bug=11095 A variation of above changes from my .emacs. (WARNING: May contain irrelevant bits. Reader discretion advised.) ,---- | | (defface hi-lock-1 | '((t (:background "#ffff00" :foreground "black"))) | "Face for hi-lock mode." | :group 'hi-lock-faces) | | (defface hi-lock-2 | '((t (:background "#00ff7f" :foreground "black"))) | "Face for hi-lock mode." | :group 'hi-lock-faces) | | | (setq hi-lock-face-defaults | (mapcar 'face-name | '(hi-lock-1 hi-lock-2 hi-lock-3 hi-lock-4 hi-lock-5 hi-lock-6 | hi-lock-7 hi-lock-8 hi-lock-9 ))) | | (custom-set-variables | '(hi-lock-faces | (quote (hi-lock-1 hi-lock-2 hi-lock-3 hi-lock-4 hi-lock-5 | hi-lock-6 hi-lock-7 hi-lock-8 hi-lock-9)))) `---- Various voices (Stefan, Jambu, Drew) ----------------------------------- ,---- | 1) Review the face names used in `hi-lock-face-defaults' and make the | faces customizable. The defaults may not look good on a user's his | own font-lock configuration. `---- ,---- | > > -(defface hi-yellow | > > +(defface hi-lock-1 | > | > I'm not sure it's an improvement. When choosing a face in | > hi-lock-face-buffer, "hi-lock-1" doesn't speak much to me contrary to | > "hi-yellow". | | Not specifically related to this face, but it is a bad idea, in general (no | doubt there are exceptions), for a face name to advertize particular face | attributes, such as the color. | | The color is presumably something that the user can customize, and is typically | not something that speaks to the use or meaning of the face. `---- ,---- | I think the real issue here is that hi-lock should have a customizable | set of faces rather than a set of customizable faces. | So if the user doesn't like hi-yellow (which should be called | hi-lock-yellow, BTW) because she never highlights in yellow, she can | replace it with her own face with the name she likes. `---- ,---- | 1. I want the name to be opaque and semantic. | | 2. I also want a pre-defined set of faces for highlighting apart from | the one "core" highlight face. I think there are 9 hi-* faces and | these numbers are good enough. | | Think of them as extra colors in my palette. | | Having a set of highlighting faces will help in theming. For | example, consider finding file in ido-mode. When I do C-x C-f, I see | various faces - the minibuffer prompt, ido-first-match, ido-subdir, | ido-indicator all occurring /next/ to each other. If there are | hi-lock-N faces, chosen by a theme designed, one can simply have ido | faces inherit from these themed faces. It is much cleaner. | | Remember choosing faces that can co-exist in buffer without much | trouble to eyes is challenging task - one needs to balance harmony | and contrast. A theme designer is likely to work with a palette and | can go with color-picking techniques like triad, tetrad schemes. See | | http://colorschemedesigner.com/ | http://www.w3.org/wiki/Colour_theory | http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/agave | | Triad and tetrads apparently are colors that are 120 and 90 degrees | apart in the color wheel. So if there are N highlighting faces, they | can be spaced 360/N degree apart in a color wheeel. | | Drew's reasoning that it is the N-th highlighting face in a sequence. | | 3. Configuring an yellow face in red is a bit ugly. It is declaring a | variable name FALSE that is assigned a variable value true. | | >> Just why would you prefer a "customizable set of faces" over a "set of | >> customizable faces"? And how does that relate to the names? | > | > Because the user can then choose the names that make sense to her. | | While reading a face name from minibuffer, if the face name itself is | highlighted in that face - think rainbow mode - then the name of the | face shouldn't matter. | | What you are asking for is a constant face whose properties don't change | at all. One can have an elpa packages which provides constant faces, | that are immediately useful. | `---- In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.3 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, X toolkit, Xaw3d scroll bars) of 2013-02-11 on debian-6.05 Bzr revision: 111730 rgm@gnu.org-20130211015045-19w1ceor0tkfxc8q Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.10707000 System Description: Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.5 (squeeze) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 15 10:04:25 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2013 15:04:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57767 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U6Mps-0001wi-QZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:04:25 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:38299) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U6Mpq-0001wY-1q for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:04:22 -0500 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from ceviche.home ([24.201.208.110]) by VL-VM-MR005.ip.videotron.ca (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 64bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MI900FVXOHWNS90@VL-VM-MR005.ip.videotron.ca> for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 4A0DD66109; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:03:32 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: 24.3.50; Re-look hi-lock-face-defaults (aka Provide more "core" faces for highlighting) Message-id: References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:03:32 -0500 In-reply-to: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: hi-lock.el lists David Koppelman as author (and maintainer for lack of any other indication). I don't know if David is really still maintaining it, but otherwise maybe you could take over maintainership of this package? [...] Content analysis details: (1.6 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [24.201.245.36 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4996] 0.1 HDRS_LCASE Odd capitalization of message header 0.0 T_MANY_HDRS_LCASE Odd capitalization of multiple message headers X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: "David M. Koppelman" , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) hi-lock.el lists David Koppelman as author (and maintainer for lack of any other indication). I don't know if David is really still maintaining it, but otherwise maybe you could take over maintainership of this package? Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 15 13:42:01 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2013 18:42:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57990 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U6QEP-0007ww-I9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:42:01 -0500 Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([130.39.16.10]:40666) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U6Q2o-0007ex-Hf for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:29:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51C428091; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:29:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ece.lsu.edu Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5nyxs2Dsate; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:29:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from sky.ece.lsu.edu (sky.ece.lsu.edu [130.39.96.14]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A45C28081; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:29:13 -0600 (CST) From: David Koppelman To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#13686: 24.3.50; Re-look hi-lock-face-defaults (aka Provide more "core" faces for highlighting) References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:29:13 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:03:32 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:41:57 -0500 Cc: Jambunathan K , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) I'm still willing to maintain it. I wasn't aware of the bug report, but I'll look into it. Stefan Monnier writes: > hi-lock.el lists David Koppelman as author (and maintainer for lack of > any other indication). I don't know if David is really still > maintaining it, but otherwise maybe you could take over maintainership > of this package? > > > Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 15 15:40:10 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2013 20:40:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58160 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U6S4o-0003Kb-2L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:40:10 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:57741) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U6S4m-0003KU-B7 for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:40:08 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABK/CFFFxKjI/2dsb2JhbABEDrsng1kXc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLDiYHCxQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhnBmBXoI5XA X-IPAS-Result: Av8EABK/CFFFxKjI/2dsb2JhbABEDrsng1kXc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLDiYHCxQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhnBmBXoI5XA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="1528683" Received: from 69-196-168-200.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.168.200]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 15 Feb 2013 15:39:22 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E8EFF6F7D2; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:39:22 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: David Koppelman Subject: Re: bug#13686: 24.3.50; Re-look hi-lock-face-defaults (aka Provide more "core" faces for highlighting) Message-ID: References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:39:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: (David Koppelman's message of "Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:29:13 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Jambunathan K , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > I'm still willing to maintain it. Oh, great. > I wasn't aware of the bug report, but I'll look into it. Yes, sorry: we should improve our handling of bugs (and commit messages) to keep maintainers better informed. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 26 18:13:03 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2013 23:13:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51875 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAThm-0000gB-O9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:13:03 -0500 Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([130.39.16.10]:49864) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAThj-0000fk-Cs for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:13:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD8328091 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:11:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ece.lsu.edu Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1k01YDWFGOpR for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:11:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from sky.ece.lsu.edu (sky.ece.lsu.edu [130.39.96.14]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDDD28081 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:11:11 -0600 (CST) From: David Koppelman To: 13686@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:11:11 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) As the original developer of hi-lock and one willing to continue maintaining it, let me add my voice: I feel that a face name like hi-lock-1 would be much less useful, even if the name itself were rendered with the highlighting. The user's goal is to highlight something, currently the user can go through face choices until he or she finds a suitable color (if the first one does not satisfy). A cryptic name like hi-lock-1 just puts irrelevant information in front of the user, assuming the name is highlighted with the color. A name like font-lock-comment-face is semantic because it indicates the purpose of the face. The purpose of hi-yellow is to highlight something in yellow, so in that sense the name is semantic. If themers felt a strong need, we could make hi-lock-face-defaults themable so that hi-yellow and hi-green say, could be replaced with hi-golden-honey and hi-grassy-green. (Or the original face names with slightly different tints.) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 26 19:35:22 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 00:35:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51943 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAUzR-0002ar-RY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:35:22 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:46606) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAUzP-0002ai-2A for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:35:20 -0500 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r1R0XTxo003653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:33:30 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1R0XTCP001992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:33:29 GMT Received: from abhmt103.oracle.com (abhmt103.oracle.com [141.146.116.55]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1R0XSR6006566; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:33:28 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.140.20) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:33:28 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'David Koppelman'" , <13686@debbugs.gnu.org> References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> Subject: RE: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:33:24 -0800 Message-ID: <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Ac4UdrvQ6gleZriYTZC+EGzIG4wM5AABSYrA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) The face name should not reflect any particular face attributes - not, that is, unless the attributes are somehow made to remain relatively constant (e.g. always some shade of yellow). Or if there is only one face for a given feature/library, and there is no more appropriate name, then it can make sense to name the face after the feature/library, for purposes of discoverability etc. The main point is that it makes little sense for a face, which is a variable thingy (changeable, customizable), to have a name that suggests otherwise, i.e., suggests that it has some _particular_, constant quality. The face name should reflect what the face is for - the kind of highlighting or whatever that it does. Is this all we can say about the purpose of this face? > The user's goal is to highlight something That's pretty vague, but at least "highlight" presumably belongs in the name. (No, not all faces are for highlighting.) And if you can narrow down the kind of "something" or the use of the highlghting, then that info too can help. Presumably, this highlighting of something is hi-lock highlighting. That already makes it a specific kind of highlighting. There is a specific way to turn it on/off etc. The manual says that hi-lock-mode highlights text that matches a regexp you provide. Is this face used for that highlighting? If so, and if there is not some other hi-lock face that it could be confused with, then "hi-lock" in the face name is the best identification of what it is for: it is the face for hi-lock highlighting. If hi-lock uses other faces that are not for highlighting, then add "highlight" to the name. If hi-lock has multiple faces used for highlighting in essentially the same way, i.e., there is nothing other than their separateness that distinguishes them, then yes, "hi-lock-1", "hi-lock-2", etc. are the best names. IOW, if you cannot be more specific than to say that this is for hi-lock highlighting, then hi-lock highlighting is what the name should reflect. It certainly should not reflect the face's particular default attributes, whether they be underlining, boxing, or a yellow background. > the user can go through face choices until he or she finds > a suitable color (if the first one does not satisfy) By that I guess you mean choosing among the available hi-lock faces, e.g., by cycling. Nothing wrong with that. But the current appearance of each of those faces has nothing to do with the face names you currently use: "hi-green" etc. Face `hi-green' might well mean italic blue text on a pink background and wrapped in a box. You seem to be arguing that a name like "hi-green" helps the user by suggesting the appearance (e.g. green background or foreground) s?he will get. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It misleads the user into thinking precisely that. If you want to give the user names that describe appearance, then you don't want faces, which are variable, you want constants - e.g., symbols or strings. In that case, let users choose a _color name_ for each kind of highlighting that you make available, and set the color of the face for that highlighting to the chosen color. Simple. The user sees color names as the choices (and all available color names, not just 5 or 6). In that case, you need to decide which attribute(s) of the face to use that color for: foreground, background, underline, box. Or you need to somehow let users choose the attribute(s) too. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 26 20:37:51 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 01:37:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52017 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAVxv-00042n-MO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:51 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:56253) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAVxp-00042c-No for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:50 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFFxKJt/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GsR+QDpEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFFxKJt/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GsR+QDpEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="2563484" Received: from 69-196-162-109.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.162.109]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 26 Feb 2013 20:35:56 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 2F8326CF3D; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:35:57 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Message-ID: References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:35:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:33:24 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > The main point is that it makes little sense for a face, which is > a variable thingy (changeable, customizable), to have a name that > suggests otherwise, i.e., suggests that it has some _particular_, > constant quality. If the user sets the hi-yellow face to red, she gets what she deserves. > The face name should reflect what the face is for - the kind of > highlighting or whatever that it does. Agreed, and hi-yellow is for highlighting some text in yellow, hence its name. The only real problem is that a user who wants to use a face whose attribute do not agree with any of the predefined hi-* faces might end up forced to use such a silly setting. So the right fix is to provide ways for the user to add her own faces. An alternative might be to let the user specify either a face name or a color name, so we can get rid of hi-yellow altogether. But that still only caters to "highlighting with a color", whereas faces offer more choices. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 26 22:38:25 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 03:38:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52108 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAXqb-0006mg-4Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:38:25 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:43649) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAXqY-0006mX-6O for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:38:23 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id wy12so82462pbc.21 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:36:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=AQJ5qDeP25GLlYyc02FMR4nAk05iZxRcU89QAXbdPtU=; b=sDDHkKJmQvX3iZxuF2oLzRXn6JURtehLkJVyFNuIdKeLoPhfuAraJ//gD7wPoLcyWk 2AfreBYsx+lu+EnQCg6Br5nGvXfV3J/oGhy9sDHI56domZGOqThondgCZbbSIhuztRPB PCjzwtneb/hC0FY2okOgAkStZZjp3yRBKipdt9jmcFm4FY5PMPG7QVra4qVnpF+DvdVt jrBs/EDmwMYP88wTaAwUIH4xpZ3hmJp3ndaWuNlVTnFOxuq0kZy1t/cJ2EPBkciC5brb Nh+/gyPxkwXa0kspbNXM0Bkw13nbjYlnYxCLveD4e5GOqoPIXQyvSDHxfryIg1QUYRxh V8AA== X-Received: by 10.68.217.164 with SMTP id oz4mr1110084pbc.73.1361936192937; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.8.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i10sm3037046pbd.1.2013.02.26.19.36.29 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:36:31 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: David Koppelman Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:06:02 +0530 In-Reply-To: (David Koppelman's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:11:11 -0600") Message-ID: <87fw0i5syl.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) David Koppelman writes: > As the original developer of hi-lock and one willing to continue > maintaining it, let me add my voice: > > I feel that a face name like hi-lock-1 would be much less useful, even > if the name itself were rendered with the highlighting. The user's > goal is to highlight something, currently the user can go through > face choices until he or she finds a suitable color (if the first one > does not satisfy). A cryptic name like hi-lock-1 just puts irrelevant > information in front of the user, assuming the name is highlighted > with the color. New option `hi-lock-auto-select-face' makes selection of faces redundant. So with auto-selection on, one doesn't even have to pick. One merely gets on with one's business of making sense of code/text at hand. Here is my original use-case ,---- http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=11095 | | 2) Make `hi-lock-face-buffer' use a different face on each invocation. | | Here is a real-world usecase for the above request. | | As a programmer, I use highlighting to trace variable dependencies | within a function. For example, in the example below, after | highlighting the variables in __different__ faces, I will come to the | conclusion that "a" depends on "d" and "tmp". | | c = d; | b = c + tmp; | a = b; | | And I use this very often to track variables and how they get their | values from. | | If I were to use the default Emacs provided behaviour then I would | have to press M-n multiple times as I highlight more and more | symbols. (Typically I have 3-5 symbols highlighted before I turn off | highlighting.) | `---- > A name like font-lock-comment-face is semantic because it indicates > the purpose of the face. The purpose of hi-yellow is to highlight > something in yellow, so in that sense the name is semantic. In would consider `hi-yellow' a "constant" face. I am not questioning the usefulness or rationale of original choice - I am convinced that it is useful. I am merely presenting one another use-case. We can have both constant faces and themable faces. IIRC, my original patch defaliased the hi-yellow to hi-lock-1. > If themers felt a strong need, we could make hi-lock-face-defaults > themable so that hi-yellow and hi-green say, could be replaced with > hi-golden-honey and hi-grassy-green. (Or the original face names with > slightly different tints.) This seems like a half-hearted attempt at theming. Remember, `highlight' face which is one of the "core" faces. My suggestion could be considered as a case for augmenting the highlighting faces with more numbers and have someone who is "visually adept" choose good defaults. The need for theming - that is multiple highlighting faces to *co-exist simulataneously* in one's buffer - is very important. When I have 3-4 highlights in my buffer (using the current defaults) my eye hurts. Bottomline: It is not an "one-or-the-other" proposal. Let's have best of both worlds. -- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 26 22:51:56 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 03:51:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52133 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAY3f-00077r-6K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:51:56 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com ([209.85.160.49]:38170) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAY3c-00077j-NY for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:51:53 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id xa12so89025pbc.36 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:50:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=dJI2G1HCL+xI3FuNJmCULn/yKP/Q1hQ/hcaL/VK13f4=; b=CNLGXUBsVfK4+LXaruCu1QNykYEL5cKPMccSokWy28X97qpgszSoZ8dPgE+wjY1p0P rUtcqBOSwR1z96+gx3I4cJDfNiR1DI+MVosxaXPQJavLydFMOZjVTvgaPhHyalMTg/gf IoWA2GCJvtm55YCuZi9F94iHM3tHSMGIxasi8mTWoDiqf7wQHPOvA07SlN+d3JWWEqrn mdukrh7aTaPXM/q4/YQDA2snHqpV1HR6UqB8QTDI/d8Eoo+i5ik35mt3r4tN20txUMp4 cpf1qRFef3aqHSeuEPUiw7z0fjCbV4Rp67cc1tsOHDGJ1sLrWGgeOgYWLnvY8KI/01Dq FXoA== X-Received: by 10.68.236.130 with SMTP id uu2mr1079588pbc.152.1361937003761; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:50:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.8.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vq9sm3051598pbc.36.2013.02.26.19.50.00 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:50:02 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:19:39 +0530 In-Reply-To: <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:33:24 -0800") Message-ID: <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: > "hi-lock-1", "hi-lock-2", etc. are the best names. My earlier mail asked for making the highlighting face a "core" one. So having highlight-1, highlight-2 etc as "core" themable faces will make theme designers pay attention to it. >From a theming perspective, the sequence 1, 2 etc are not merely opaque names. I have argued that they can be look at as "angles" on a "color wheel". So if we are looking at triads of colors, we are looking at colors at positions n * 120 degrees apart on a color wheel. The colors of highlight faces *should not* be chosen independently. They should "gel" well with each other. -- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 26 23:01:34 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 04:01:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52142 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAYCz-0007Lv-8M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:01:34 -0500 Received: from mail-da0-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42]:34059) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAYCx-0007Ln-0d for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:01:32 -0500 Received: by mail-da0-f42.google.com with SMTP id n15so76742dad.15 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:59:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=C1eWVztegF0KsUdu4gpqxO86Ga8qTSPEmgJTriJiHEo=; b=BVr2qQ6GbOB66EsUUBRnaT4V2DyrKntFw+VXi99fpT99A3QNV7qtIN+aJW61qgDSqX cb3ViC3VS+ANA0EX0icTD4Ic3gJuwPldjxALYB86mzcz7rrISQsxqaDThh+leqdxj2+6 f7EQappRoK0LuGGK2NH5m6DM5BfQUyvAot+IVxeeAJodWx/KlVCkzymV64w71PkCIO3i AQHVFTo/GbmO2CdshY8Rq5rxi87I2VDcayRnWUEMkpuoZizJMt73n79H0FlFLlBX8L4K sN3JslBXNf83BMZQnArp+7LHyHVRY7weBVRAq9oc90aOTUiFVZOQgwwcTfTMtN0WrmAP Xjgg== X-Received: by 10.68.197.103 with SMTP id it7mr1192392pbc.76.1361937581803; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:59:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.8.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ol7sm3097579pbb.14.2013.02.26.19.59.38 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:59:41 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:29:12 +0530 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:35:57 -0500") Message-ID: <877glu5rvz.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Stefan Monnier writes: >> The main point is that it makes little sense for a face, which is >> a variable thingy (changeable, customizable), to have a name that >> suggests otherwise, i.e., suggests that it has some _particular_, >> constant quality. > > If the user sets the hi-yellow face to red, she gets what she deserves. As an intelligent user, she deserves better. I am not asking for *supplanting* the status quo but to *augment* it. >> The face name should reflect what the face is for - the kind of >> highlighting or whatever that it does. > > Agreed, and hi-yellow is for highlighting some text in yellow, hence > its name. > > The only real problem is that a user who wants to use a face whose > attribute do not agree with any of the predefined hi-* faces might end > up forced to use such a silly setting. > > So the right fix is to provide ways for the user to add her own faces. > > An alternative might be to let the user specify either a face name or > a color name, so we can get rid of hi-yellow altogether. But that still > only caters to "highlighting with a color", whereas faces offer > more choices. Having a *set* of faces for highlighting and have them recognized as "core" faces will make theme designers conscious of their presence and usefulness. Consider the case for ido. At the minibuffer prompt, I see atleast three faces (leaving aside the default face). 1. The minibuffer prompt itself. 2. The first match face. 3. Face for directories. The important thing is that these faces should not only be contrasting enough but also harmonious. If I am not happy with the default faces for ido, I can simply make the ido faces inherit highlight, highlight-1, highlight-2 etc and be done with it. > Stefan > > > > -- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 26 23:11:14 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 04:11:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52154 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAYML-0007ZG-MX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:11:14 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f51.google.com ([209.85.160.51]:53984) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAYMK-0007Z9-CO for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:11:13 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id un15so98568pbc.24 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:09:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=vqAsbjGszWZ2pRSvEYbKQAcJTnBVvQFZxyUBm/M4S44=; b=qYxAYLFmLAJaZufBjYt9CAxATNaphFbdJhnvmkHlfvSgVYpSU8ccdp7zvfW3odtUgZ /dhzigcoPkSKzFbUa9x0f97w5Tdd1BVyY/5WSvoybu9Rqh83+ywj6rDNRzmQafvV9e53 R1etTo9A7G/9ePcEId0/LWF2l5qwcfNaTj3WaIVav1jDXT9T8+9WkqEXYcWkkRa0zEar UFbmniect16+eTN2rPoezcos/V+ho9bpUM3coahG5ZZnonTfiQF3JlcsC4jJBzLBXl9h B1j/PxDJ9IcLysEplLcuf+I/Jie2WltiIvHP6qzFIVoz+EuQUsTJv/B/9Me1Cp306625 Y/Uw== X-Received: by 10.66.25.105 with SMTP id b9mr5313115pag.45.1361938163416; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:09:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.8.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mz8sm480534pbc.9.2013.02.26.20.09.20 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:09:22 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: David Koppelman Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:38:59 +0530 In-Reply-To: (David Koppelman's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:11:11 -0600") Message-ID: <8738wi5rfo.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) David Koppelman writes: > A name like font-lock-comment-face is semantic because it indicates > the purpose of the face. Instead of hi-lock-n or highlight-n, one can go for font-lock-highlight-face-1, font-lock-hihglight-face-2 etc. If one is working on a new programming mode and wants an "extra face" in his palette then one knows what can be picked. -- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 00:00:08 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 05:00:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52195 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAZ7g-0000GV-Kb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:00:08 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:42307) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAZ7e-0000GM-Bm for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:00:07 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r1R4wFZf031901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:58:16 GMT Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1R4wFwt025641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:58:15 GMT Received: from abhmt118.oracle.com (abhmt118.oracle.com [141.146.116.70]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1R4wEj3006352; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:58:15 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.140.20) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:58:14 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Stefan Monnier'" References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:58:10 -0800 Message-ID: <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Ac4UisvyOcaWuETPR9icwb/QFElKUAAGZVMA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) > > The main point is that it makes little sense for a face, which is > > a variable thingy (changeable, customizable), to have a name that > > suggests otherwise, i.e., suggests that it has some _particular_, > > constant quality. > > If the user sets the hi-yellow face to red, she gets what she > deserves. Really? What dos she deserve? Are you saying that there is some reason she should not customize the face? Why use a face then? > > The face name should reflect what the face is for - the kind of > > highlighting or whatever that it does. > > Agreed, and hi-yellow is for highlighting some text in yellow, hence > its name. If that's really what it's for, then the name is apt. In that case, a customizable face is not what's needed. Or else maybe one where you somehow limit the customization regarding color for various attributes. > The only real problem is that a user who wants to use a face whose > attribute do not agree with any of the predefined hi-* faces might end > up forced to use such a silly setting. If you provide a customizable face where you don't want one, and you don't limit it in any way, that's the silliness. It is not silly for a user to use an allowed value. > So the right fix is to provide ways for the user to add her own faces. That would not change the anomalous `hi-' faces. It would not prevent the silly settings you mention. > An alternative might be to let the user specify either a face name or > a color name, so we can get rid of hi-yellow altogether. But > that still only caters to "highlighting with a color", whereas faces > offer more choices. Let the user choose a color. And let the user choose other attributes. And if you're going to do all that, then just let the user customize faces, which do not have any static, inherent colors, even if they might unfortunately have a color in their names. IOW, just rename the faces based on what they are really for, not on particular colors. Oh, but you said that "hi-yellow is for highlighting...in yellow". In that case, it is not also about using other face attributes. Time to choose. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 00:12:23 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 05:12:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52202 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAZJW-0000XA-RO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:12:23 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:47048) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAZJU-0000X3-Iz for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:12:21 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id fa11so186537pad.37 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:10:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=rZHSOXsI8BQVmgDA+8cT5ZXig4zf5WMpBiqQ9lOXyfE=; b=wHaCc0M2D7tfIp9zRCaAH4FX+3cOWc0QnHs8pQF+HSx8xBbR50FJahbsTTjWrOZdpj b0N7arm6O84pBTTDrZB6F10NneAy5Eldy9OSKj4V66OJZDSbMljnDad0uFxvn4uK0R2y iKLV2F0kEKxvcJtl1XYrrMlessyd5p2OznvTLNylJFLL5x67Fb7y/ZYPS9pmloRdTwbJ 0gEHVEWlVaskFBYy7yv/fyW5uGUn6eddP8tEXPA/PZRqDhisf8Uo46TsYgPvhnG4UYQL JWPj/xGoXEgmbRi0NbvJAPJLKBct8/1ENFAXuyhTli6Yq/tlHG7WqU7BIsZ6SMMRrwCz 9WYA== X-Received: by 10.66.182.134 with SMTP id ee6mr5611504pac.117.1361941831212; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:10:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.8.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jp9sm3321397pbb.7.2013.02.26.21.10.27 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:10:30 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:40:06 +0530 In-Reply-To: <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:58:10 -0800") Message-ID: <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 'Stefan Monnier' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: > Oh, but you said that "hi-yellow is for highlighting...in yellow". In > that case, it is not also about using other face attributes. Time to > choose. `hi-yellow' is an example of a face that is immutable. It is defconstface, so to speak. -- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 00:40:05 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 05:40:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52238 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAZkK-0001DC-Dm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:40:04 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:23322) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAZkF-0001Cc-Ok for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:40:01 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r1R5c9VJ004881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:38:10 GMT Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1R5c82x006275 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:38:09 GMT Received: from abhmt113.oracle.com (abhmt113.oracle.com [141.146.116.65]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1R5c8F2028623; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:38:08 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.140.20) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:38:07 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Jambunathan K'" References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com><527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> Subject: RE: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:38:03 -0800 Message-ID: <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> Thread-Index: Ac4UqMVyu1NyoWN2TIykpul8cMRXOgAAeRWA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 'Stefan Monnier' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) > > Oh, but you said that "hi-yellow is for highlighting...in > > yellow". In that case, it is not also about using other face > > attributes. Time to choose. > > `hi-yellow' is an example of a face that is immutable. It is > defconstface, so to speak. As I said before, and at the very beginning as well, I believe: if it were in fact constant then such a name might be apt. Is it in fact immutable? I didn't think so, and I see nothing in the code that prevents changing it. On the contrary, it seems to be a normal, customizable face. And that's the point. `hi-yellow' is not a great name for a customizable face. (And if it were truly immutable then there would be more that is constant about it than just its yellow color. Whether the name should then reflect only "yellow" could be based on whether the color were the most important constant attribute.) If you really want an immutable face with some yellow attribute(s), then enforce that in the code. If you instead define a normal face (i.e., customizable, with no restrictions) then don't confuse users by calling it "yellow" - because it's not. Just one opinion, of course. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 00:56:22 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 05:56:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52250 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAa06-0001Zr-1p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:56:22 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:48518) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAa03-0001Zj-B7 for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:56:19 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id bh2so215843pad.2 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:54:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=gcgYeyqtq80KmFWyFO7YZY+bShQUepbFsKnPVfX15JA=; b=gSUT/YwlldxyY8mlXoNFtotNhMDSMer/aMlQlX/QFLSqUzurbr4jEfXsom5bJS7tRC dSwXmZq7wAg7/l6PH96H7yJbs1VT7w05uGXYqsf5ewLhye4XmFv1osAw4L/FE5jkKEcL 3rCTdUf/ywBiLqnBBXKm/v1vjrTMHfJjBrL9lzg3XwNJAtRmPI9Ko+NUZcpBzwSBWldn Vt/4P4NFRwfPpBQGcVxcu2Ysmai/YZy6DYFzMTWBl5yRvBenKw+YJWoVXTsvE1es/s0T Qrhiia73xinAubKxoilUoB3mzTACGwtB3Sgx1O/Aer+uI/MNnAoMk4xzLo4hwGyG33LA PkHQ== X-Received: by 10.66.163.104 with SMTP id yh8mr5636880pab.170.1361944469989; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.8.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ww9sm3432757pbc.41.2013.02.26.21.54.26 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:54:29 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:24:06 +0530 In-Reply-To: <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:38:03 -0800") Message-ID: <87r4k2e1z5.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 'Stefan Monnier' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: > (And if it were truly immutable then there would be more that is constant about > it than just its yellow color. Whether the name should then reflect only > "yellow" could be based on whether the color were the most important constant > attribute.) In lighter vein, I still remember the old days when I looked at "hi-yellow" and thought that it was a "very bright yellow" and searched for "lo-yellow". No, I am not making the above story up. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 01:03:18 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 06:03:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52260 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAa6o-0001kw-59 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:03:18 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:31220) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAa6m-0001kl-0h for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:03:16 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r1R61NZ7024354 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:01:24 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1R61Mf3007472 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:01:23 GMT Received: from abhmt108.oracle.com (abhmt108.oracle.com [141.146.116.60]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1R61MdE008618; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:01:22 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.174.208) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:01:22 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Jambunathan K'" References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com><527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com><87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com><60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> <87r4k2e1z5.fsf@gmail.com> Subject: RE: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:01:17 -0800 Message-ID: <41D13742B4C24FE5A3931D01BBCDC6F9@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87r4k2e1z5.fsf@gmail.com> Thread-Index: Ac4UrunR7P/xsLLjT7uzdLAs7+DX9QAAKzYw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 'Stefan Monnier' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) > In lighter vein, I still remember the old days when I looked at > "hi-yellow" and thought that it was a "very bright yellow" > and searched for "lo-yellow". > > No, I am not making the above story up. ;-) Not very important, but is there a reason why the prefix `hi-lock-' is not used here as elsewhere? (And perhaps it should be added to the defgroup.) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 08:48:49 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 13:48:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52928 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAhNI-00053s-HA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:48:49 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:13053) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAhND-00053c-3l for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:48:43 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFFxKJt/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IfAQVWIxALNBIUGA0kiCTBLY0fg2sDiGGJeZIggV6DFYFR X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFFxKJt/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IfAQVWIxALNBIUGA0kiCTBLY0fg2sDiGGJeZIggV6DFYFR X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="2592912" Received: from 69-196-162-109.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.162.109]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 27 Feb 2013 08:46:50 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id CCA9B6C05E; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:46:50 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Message-ID: References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:46:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:19:39 +0530") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) >> "hi-lock-1", "hi-lock-2", etc. are the best names. > My earlier mail asked for making the highlighting face a "core" one. So > having highlight-1, highlight-2 etc as "core" themable faces will make > theme designers pay attention to it. We could definitely add such core faces. But in order for that to augment current functionality, we still need a way for the user to specify the highlighting directly by its attribute. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 09:59:01 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 14:59:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53597 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAiTE-0006i6-VJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:59:01 -0500 Received: from mail-da0-f47.google.com ([209.85.210.47]:59314) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAiTC-0006hz-RW for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:58:59 -0500 Received: by mail-da0-f47.google.com with SMTP id s35so334044dak.20 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:57:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=sU21WwhbcEH8IJc7kJhFMp0GNhaigVJ7w5yIB2JR550=; b=vGYGONiv8HL0xlS5jXFar2N2UBZyxTvsPWH0BfAjr9a7jI1XJe+WduBPFvadHWGwA1 8dYROOxsnjPXbru6YBuutXReEftCtFJzJlvLNcIYLAy63u9uD8Z40X4MIlfEGAGAvSTJ XCM8i5Rf5lDL6BfuA1wUG8qWuzkk1PqSZVsnwtye0VSwoKEd6ECmh1il2YAJiRcqPAgp Rhq49drwMGEos7kMwDvygAOErFtFY8S+pulRSzTPxXPNTAfHWCfAfzY88r7+X475S/L6 qUUF4fZdwkM3xJZt4T8NPFqrTCcKOHuoLWrPS/E4zfgB+CUuFX9E8jzop83hNLBvCmpv B6lw== X-Received: by 10.67.22.33 with SMTP id hp1mr7879717pad.3.1361977027106; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:57:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([101.63.142.48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f9sm5618359paz.12.2013.02.27.06.57.01 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:57:05 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:26:47 +0530 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:46:50 -0500") Message-ID: <87bob5n6ts.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Stefan Monnier writes: >>> "hi-lock-1", "hi-lock-2", etc. are the best names. >> My earlier mail asked for making the highlighting face a "core" one. So >> having highlight-1, highlight-2 etc as "core" themable faces will make >> theme designers pay attention to it. > > We could definitely add such core faces. But in order for that to > augment current functionality, we still need a way for the user to > specify the highlighting directly by its attribute. The last sentence after the comma is not clear to me. You seem to imply some-"way" is missing. Can someone explain what is meant here? > Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 11:29:27 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2013 16:29:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53744 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAjsh-0000OG-Bj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:29:26 -0500 Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:51851) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAjse-0000O6-2Y for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:29:21 -0500 Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r1RGRSfp012006; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:27:28 -0500 Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 0F1DFB40E2; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:27:28 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Message-ID: References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87bob5n6ts.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:27:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bob5n6ts.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:26:47 +0530") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4505=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <4505> : streams <914510> : uri <1356671> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) >>>> "hi-lock-1", "hi-lock-2", etc. are the best names. >>> My earlier mail asked for making the highlighting face a "core" one. So >>> having highlight-1, highlight-2 etc as "core" themable faces will make >>> theme designers pay attention to it. >> We could definitely add such core faces. But in order for that to >> augment current functionality, we still need a way for the user to >> specify the highlighting directly by its attribute. > The last sentence after the comma is not clear to me. You seem to imply > some-"way" is missing. Can someone explain what is meant here? I meant "in hi-lock". More specifically, the current hi-lock lets you choose a face name, not a color. Since current face names include "hi-yellow", it ends up letting you choose a color, but if we rename them to something else, that removes this (indirect) ability to specify a color. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 27 19:17:06 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Feb 2013 00:17:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54414 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UArBJ-00035O-V7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:17:06 -0500 Received: from ps18281.dreamhost.com ([69.163.218.105]:39686 helo=ps18281.dreamhostps.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UArBF-00034o-3v for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:17:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (ps18281.dreamhostps.com [69.163.218.105]) by ps18281.dreamhostps.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16039258B92901; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:15:00 -0800 (PST) From: Juri Linkov To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Organization: JURTA References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:45:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:38:03 -0800") Message-ID: <87fw0htl0s.fsf@mail.jurta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 'Jambunathan K' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) > And that's the point. `hi-yellow' is not a great name for a customizable face. `hi-yellow' is a meaningful name. Together with other complementary faces they cover the whole color space. If you don't want the default yellow color, you can customize it to another shade of yellow, e.g. "Light Goldenrod Yellow". If you want a shade of green, customize `hi-green' and use it, etc. OTOH, face names like `hi-lock-1' or `hi-lock-2' are meaningless. What does the number 1 or 2 mean? Compare them with other faces that have a number in their names where the number in `info-title-1', `gnus-cite-1', `outline-1', `org-level-1' means the nesting level. What could be improved is `hi-lock-face-defaults' to specify a color palette like in `vc-annotate-color-map' that produces such color gradient face names as `vc-annotate-face-DDFF3F' (note that the hex number "DDFF3F" is still meaningful in the face name). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 06 13:43:52 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2013 18:43:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34701 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJJb-0005hW-K3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:43:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:54335) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJJU-0005hF-Vc for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:43:46 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id um15so6438178pbc.28 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:43:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=0rE5PdSSwJ+7J5cv3OXQlWhRpENVVc/AS5MyRh4l+rk=; b=y5uBqKGQcQQxcOtiuuY3dEM9yOUM/8DlJi1keEBMFNsVgkekcSsAX90Rbb3baPB/GL K2Ss7MSVqdc2jr9QGmo+Q2uw7v7KEoHMvbsxWFKWoBqS4cdzVDqTxIC8Z1OIqzzgJ/Xe 3Q0jIZ8lDVhtSJYjXx9E0t+wuDbcnxCPuQ+VWGZcyhdHBaG4QqrtpfczQ1CGMmzgLX3W kbFvpbcJCZ6n3kL8X6ytWqniCouBPlln67IGWueijd0UG9u/6jA/KvqqjFiNFxCd+JsE n2TN2j4aSWJq1fpzMZSWRAs+DuAd3RXtna4aawbnFchP3vChMuNopNkTRuzEUI7ZhUqf zATg== X-Received: by 10.68.202.3 with SMTP id ke3mr48378338pbc.98.1362595387572; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.90.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kl4sm32385301pbc.31.2013.03.06.10.43.03 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:43:06 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: Juri Linkov Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> <87fw0htl0s.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:13:00 +0530 In-Reply-To: <87fw0htl0s.fsf@mail.jurta.org> (Juri Linkov's message of "Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:45:05 +0200") Message-ID: <871ubsz7wr.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Juri Linkov writes: >> And that's the point. `hi-yellow' is not a great name for a customizable face. > > `hi-yellow' is a meaningful name. Together with other complementary > faces they cover the whole color space. It is difficult for me to believe that the original design intent was to "cover color space". hi-black-b hi-black-hb hi-blue hi-blue-b hi-green hi-green-b hi-pink hi-red-b hi-yellow You see there are two blacks, two blues and two greens. Try C-u M-x list-colors-display RET hi- RET and convince yourself how close or far away it is from covering the whole "color space". It seems like a mixed bag. If there is a design, I am not seeing it. But your suggestion that the colors should distributed on the color wheel sounds appealing. I propose: 1. hi-lock-color-* prefix for these faces and add more colors. How many do you want. 8 or 12 would be a good start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html_colors#HTML_color_names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html_colors#X11_color_names ps: I know how to alias faces. But how do I obsolete faces. Can someone hammer out the fine details for me? Should be copy-pasta work once there is some consensus or agreement. > If you don't want the default yellow color, you can customize it to > another shade of yellow, e.g. "Light Goldenrod Yellow". If you want a > shade of green, customize `hi-green' and use it, etc. > > OTOH, face names like `hi-lock-1' or `hi-lock-2' are meaningless. > What does the number 1 or 2 mean? Compare them with other faces > that have a number in their names where the number in `info-title-1', > `gnus-cite-1', `outline-1', `org-level-1' means the nesting level. > > What could be improved is `hi-lock-face-defaults' to specify > a color palette like in `vc-annotate-color-map' that produces > such color gradient face names as `vc-annotate-face-DDFF3F' > (note that the hex number "DDFF3F" is still meaningful in the face name). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 06 13:57:32 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2013 18:57:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34718 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJWp-00061R-TI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:57:31 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:63148) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJWk-000619-27 for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:57:26 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rp2so6420207pbb.20 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:56:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=hWJj2J5Qa/qPdkCLFw/JY2zTBA3lTN9PsfhGSLTxWqs=; b=ttV83nO7f7qlMwpFfuPUaeFruEhu0YbkBfSveuzzbBOXuJWIWl3mBkfrYGsNnOrN52 Xx7mDa5pl2783E5HTOTXeqCrShlDHc/oPcxtmnwSsxgTWEDQDEC8wYj6VltjUZfgT8hv SjzpESY0A9jcRCETo7i5jmYcEucS+y57/i1K5IApCxkpddFp9kupL+oHaJ0F35SFkkun TnV/2QnyAHXE7j6AVe5vX47JPV0meF0ETAXY7ozfNAuEtjYdQDEc1JaAT06XQxIOp+Fq 7Z9N6JdUAI7szn02TAwk/bE+O6I5N5ipcdHfKuQQEqvhWUfYDQkmbv1m5+JTFd4RH6l+ fSiA== X-Received: by 10.68.47.39 with SMTP id a7mr48761395pbn.155.1362596208844; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:56:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.90.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id zm1sm32427584pbc.26.2013.03.06.10.56.44 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:26:41 +0530 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:46:50 -0500") Message-ID: <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Stefan Monnier writes: >>> "hi-lock-1", "hi-lock-2", etc. are the best names. >> My earlier mail asked for making the highlighting face a "core" one. So >> having highlight-1, highlight-2 etc as "core" themable faces will make >> theme designers pay attention to it. > > We could definitely add such core faces. But in order for that to > augment current functionality, we still need a way for the user to > specify the highlighting directly by its attribute. Let's focus on core, themable faces. How many you want in what prefix or file. I propose that these faces be named opaquely as hi-lock-N highlight-N font-lock-user-N font-lock-highlight-N font-lock-extra-face-N ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have also proposed that hi-yellow etc be named as hi-lock-color-yellow etc. My overall plan is to have a formalized version of the following with `hi-lock-face-regexp' turned around in to a defcustom. (defvar hi-lock-face-regexp "\\`hi-lock-color") (setq hi-lock-face-defaults ((lambda (regexp) "List of faces that match REGEXP." (delq nil (mapcar (lambda (f) (let ((s (symbol-name f))) (when (string-match regexp s) f))) (reverse (face-list))))) hi-lock-face-regexp)) This way those who want to be prompted with colors and those who want opaque, themable faces will remain happy. ps: I will provide a patch once there is a general agreement on the approach. ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 06 14:04:54 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2013 19:04:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34730 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJdz-0006DT-1W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:04:54 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com ([209.85.160.44]:35680) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJds-0006DB-PA for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:04:49 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id wz12so6431180pbc.3 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:04:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=pQXd3/aryrCY8+HrgaTrt9suMIoKmp27X7fWRv0N2v4=; b=0c/uqT6i4QpCPTU4xcZA68kvkgW7QgVfE1jHAvA1+6xl4vXemlTOPddjBagSXmlj/o Q1EX9o74V27b9LYswJ4ei5NFlvIni/TmrhnXXMxoB+HUdt6QRs9clCoAaV+1VBCgyzS5 /Ju+Zo/FdS+OlOAcdBGmEfRwRWI9QpvxKl3mdafMdcJ9ks+CU8j4MfxxAUA2gKHEBr7l L9qWeYc9msWc1zvK8qCndN6f6949U2Kmvr7yRLaGHneFaKhwCc3ed2fe8vKGi065SEG0 5ZflkOARc6eyrXCA9MLgWDj/YV1g9dwcrT6za7j6Nz2S3Dgewnud0xJPUxMIYhAlI6vB nI7A== X-Received: by 10.68.189.40 with SMTP id gf8mr47880233pbc.128.1362596651622; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:04:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.90.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rd1sm32454955pbc.19.2013.03.06.11.04.07 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:04:10 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:34:05 +0530 In-Reply-To: <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:38:03 -0800") Message-ID: <87sj48xsd6.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , 'Stefan Monnier' , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: >> > Oh, but you said that "hi-yellow is for highlighting...in >> > yellow". In that case, it is not also about using other face >> > attributes. Time to choose. >> >> `hi-yellow' is an example of a face that is immutable. It is >> defconstface, so to speak. > > As I said before, and at the very beginning as well, I believe: if it were in > fact constant then such a name might be apt. >From the "I-want-colors" camp, I am hearing that by Yellow it is not yellow per-se but some variation of yellow. The definition of Yellow is so broad that it will go to the extent of embracing face with a yellow background or even a reverse video of it. Visually speaking, you will see Yellow - a light one or a bright one, in either foreground or background etc. Where yellow occurs is not guaranteed, but you will get yellow. > Is it in fact immutable? I didn't think so, and I see nothing in the code that > prevents changing it. On the contrary, it seems to be a normal, customizable > face. > > And that's the point. `hi-yellow' is not a great name for a customizable face. > > (And if it were truly immutable then there would be more that is constant about > it than just its yellow color. Whether the name should then reflect only > "yellow" could be based on whether the color were the most important constant > attribute.) > > If you really want an immutable face with some yellow attribute(s), then enforce > that in the code. If you instead define a normal face (i.e., customizable, > with no restrictions) then don't confuse users by calling it "yellow" - because > it's not. > > Just one opinion, of course. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 06 14:55:32 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2013 19:55:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34776 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDKR1-0007RV-KQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:55:31 -0500 Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([130.39.16.10]:38670) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDKQy-0007RJ-Te for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:55:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2FC28093; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:54:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ece.lsu.edu Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cNLeSz0ytYwV; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:54:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from sky.ece.lsu.edu (sky.ece.lsu.edu [130.39.96.14]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A9F28091; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:54:55 -0600 (CST) From: David Koppelman To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> <87fw0htl0s.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <871ubsz7wr.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:54:55 -0600 In-Reply-To: <871ubsz7wr.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:13:00 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Juri Linkov , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) > From: Jambunathan K gmail.com> > > It is difficult for me to believe that the original design intent was to > "cover color space". There was no conscious effort to evenly cover the color space. The idea was to choose colors that looked right for highlighting, with the default set to background yellow, as is customary. Some faces are provided as foreground-bold colors, and one as an alternate font. I did not design hi-lock for automatically rotating faces and I personally don't like automatic rotation for two reasons. First, it assumes that the user wants a different color for each highlighting pattern, which may often be the case, but not always. Second, I think it's better when the user explicitly controls the color, so that there is a better connection between the color and whatever it is the targets signify. That said, I don't object to re-selecting the colors to be more evenly spaced perceptually. But, there should still be foreground-bold variants. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 06 14:56:07 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2013 19:56:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34780 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDKRZ-0007Sc-4Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:56:07 -0500 Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([130.39.16.10]:38690) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDKRV-0007S3-SJ for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:56:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BBC728093; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:55:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ece.lsu.edu Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZO+qppKU3sYD; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:55:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from sky.ece.lsu.edu (sky.ece.lsu.edu [130.39.96.14]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B768728091; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:55:28 -0600 (CST) From: David Koppelman To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:55:28 -0600 In-Reply-To: <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:26:41 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Stefan Monnier , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) > From: Jambunathan K gmail.com> > > Let's focus on core, themable faces. How many you want in what prefix > or file. I propose that these faces be named opaquely as > hi-lock-N > highlight-N > font-lock-user-N > font-lock-highlight-N > font-lock-extra-face-N I object to using cryptic names for faces. The user should see a recognizable color name for the default hi-lock faces, and should be able to pick any face he or she likes. Hi-lock currently does this. I know that this can be achieved using face names such as hi-lock-1 by extracting a color from a face definition (if necessary, mapping an RGB triple to a name), but this is an unnecessary complication. As I see it, the only things that will be achieved are providing for themability and abiding by a convention that some interpret as a separation of face attributes from face names. I still don't understand why themability is so important for someone who wants to quickly highlight things for their own purposes. This is not the same as having a face reserved for errors, warnings, etc. As for the convention of not naming or otherwise linking a face with particular attributes (as some may interpret it), either it doesn't apply here, or if it does, it's a good place to ignore it. I've argued before that it does not apply because as most agree faces should be defined for a particular purpose rather than for appearance, such as for highlighting variable names. The face hi-yellow has a purpose: highlight something with a background of yellow. It is named appropriately and its attributes are so set. If there is a rule somewhere which clearly states that this is not allowed, then that rule should be broken in this case. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 06 15:07:38 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2013 20:07:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34789 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDKci-0007jX-Ie for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:07:38 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]:57033) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDKcc-0007jG-8a for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:07:34 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id rr4so6481870pbb.27 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:06:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=kILFTvVcaHQoKDkRyHuBnLk+3gzJRJYF2/FNInOhI3o=; b=wGOP1Ut7RG+cRZU1Eqj42axx5Xwo8WdoP9ffHnhoGpLIgtkgMHisK+I5G71p6juZGk 5I52Y0FSBcruCrwZIaQeGQ3gZctPJwIFcIMJqI/ESVd9oQoMkDrP2CYhqDzU+pP+vyE+ ZMHKl4oR91ssgpN2SF/1DXAA7y1GGMphchSTgxGr+/EWMK1RArsTlaexUztFELz0w4L2 041MUloSfPDRS0/F9pUCP/koldqvwWU2tD07043R+5dQwQ51pTzmpAvgtkU1M37Itzll IibLAQaPBd1VhAaaLN7FpuG+2kL6AqLiVq5HL7nPwkxI9ECPsfUBj5jxVjMym5qJG/Xp JQwA== X-Received: by 10.68.28.194 with SMTP id d2mr48001746pbh.215.1362600416720; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:06:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.90.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gf6sm32639842pbc.24.2013.03.06.12.06.52 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:06:55 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: David Koppelman Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 01:36:50 +0530 In-Reply-To: (David Koppelman's message of "Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:55:28 -0600") Message-ID: <87k3pkz411.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Stefan Monnier , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) David Koppelman writes: >> From: Jambunathan K gmail.com> >> >> Let's focus on core, themable faces. How many you want in what prefix >> or file. I propose that these faces be named opaquely as > >> hi-lock-N >> highlight-N >> font-lock-user-N >> font-lock-highlight-N >> font-lock-extra-face-N > > I object to using cryptic names for faces. Ok, I withdraw hi-lock-N. As for other faces, I believe it is Stefan's or Emacs maintainers call. I am moving forward, after getting a in-principle go from Stefan. > The user should see a recognizable color name for the default hi-lock > faces, and should be able to pick any face he or she likes. Hi-lock > currently does this. I know that this can be achieved using face names > such as hi-lock-1 by extracting a color from a face definition (if > necessary, mapping an RGB triple to a name), but this is an > unnecessary complication. As I see it, the only things that will be > achieved are providing for themability and abiding by a convention > that some interpret as a separation of face attributes from face > names. I gave a code snippet at the end of the mail. If you had looked at it, you will realize that I have done nothing which changes the status quo but I have done eveything to accommodate my requirements. I am the proposer, right? Please provide specific feedback on the snippet rather than registering a broad objection. I have made an effort to understand the "I-want-color" camp and I have also openly acknowledged that the "I-want-color" camp have valid and sensible arguments. Jambunathan K. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 06 19:55:32 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2013 00:55:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34943 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDP7M-0005w3-BM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:55:32 -0500 Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([130.39.16.10]:46139) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDP7I-0005vi-TZ for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:55:31 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8084128093; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:54:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ece.lsu.edu Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eeJnNgMW2zt0; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:54:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from sky.ece.lsu.edu (sky.ece.lsu.edu [130.39.96.14]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E0C28091; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:54:54 -0600 (CST) From: David Koppelman To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> <87k3pkz411.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:54:54 -0600 In-Reply-To: <87k3pkz411.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2013 01:36:50 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Stefan Monnier , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) Jambunathan K writes: > > I gave a code snippet at the end of the mail. If you had looked at it, > you will realize that I have done nothing which changes the status quo > but I have done eveything to accommodate my requirements. I am the > proposer, right? I'm sorry, I was responding more to past comments than the specific message I was replying to. > Please provide specific feedback on the snippet rather than registering > a broad objection. I have made an effort to understand the > "I-want-color" camp and I have also openly acknowledged that the > "I-want-color" camp have valid and sensible arguments. So, the goal of hi-lock-face-regexp is to select a set of fonts. I guess the custom interface would expose simple options to the user, for example, "Fixed Colors", "Theme Colors", and for each option the appropriate regexp would be assigned. Is that right? In that case, why not have a variable hi-lock-use-theme-colors and use that to select either the current default list, or one with generic names. That said, I still believe the user should see the color that will be applied, and that this be accomplished without undue complexity. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 06 22:24:03 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2013 03:24:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35062 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDRR5-0001u6-CN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:24:03 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]:46397) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDRR2-0001tc-VU for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:24:02 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id un1so8065pbc.40 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:23:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=tI1ixhqemrlwOTfGJOpfQfkyLa6egAohznE3lP1ssnc=; b=QEsiWQCDQicrQKivP30Gugo3GIuKEiwVMiTOuK1rO2xCQNSqmD1fR6H2Su2zCglKq/ MsHFonQq3I/tV0g2Gz3plvL+z/Hjuicb/Luv+0FTxwLMa0KVEl1jdvd2h2GUOWhSLBdC 3CtIrPj0GbOQOpAYFssHgrKppJxiTBlOsU/hfAf0suNxGPsUSTPkcO6J6sefsBVBwAWW s7wsGBBwCtR7NSTvgN4gAobcUpAxbgnFwBVrFAMjkAwPqhj0bOXR95Fiytu/eDOa7bqf Shk7r2IcOgqcMyPNpW2Z4J3Ut8Q142hAYErM8tE2MVK98jQgoz70TZizKXK53ttBNvR2 BLQw== X-Received: by 10.66.122.5 with SMTP id lo5mr638613pab.189.1362626605624; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:23:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.19.213]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ti8sm15004084pbc.12.2013.03.06.19.23.21 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:23:24 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: David Koppelman Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> <87k3pkz411.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:53:19 +0530 In-Reply-To: (David Koppelman's message of "Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:54:54 -0600") Message-ID: <871ubruc48.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Stefan Monnier , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) David Koppelman writes: > Jambunathan K writes: >> >> I gave a code snippet at the end of the mail. If you had looked at it, >> you will realize that I have done nothing which changes the status quo >> but I have done eveything to accommodate my requirements. I am the >> proposer, right? > > I'm sorry, I was responding more to past comments than the specific > message I was replying to. > >> Please provide specific feedback on the snippet rather than registering >> a broad objection. I have made an effort to understand the >> "I-want-color" camp and I have also openly acknowledged that the >> "I-want-color" camp have valid and sensible arguments. > > So, the goal of hi-lock-face-regexp is to select a set of fonts. I > guess the custom interface would expose simple options to the user, > for example, "Fixed Colors", "Theme Colors", and for each option the > appropriate regexp would be assigned. Is that right? Correct. > In that case, why not have a variable hi-lock-use-theme-colors and use > that to select either the current default list, or one with generic > names. Yes, this is fine with me. I am open to anything that would address even a fraction of my needs. > That said, I still believe the user should see the color that will be > applied, and that this be accomplished without undue complexity. Yes, existing users of hi-lock shouldn't be alarmed with new changes. Jambunathan K. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 07 04:21:07 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2013 09:21:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35443 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDX0c-0001Wa-Bj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 04:21:07 -0500 Received: from ps18281.dreamhost.com ([69.163.218.105]:57089 helo=ps18281.dreamhostps.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDX0X-0001W6-PC for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 04:21:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (ps18281.dreamhostps.com [69.163.218.105]) by ps18281.dreamhostps.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96049258B92903; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 01:20:29 -0800 (PST) From: Juri Linkov To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Organization: JURTA References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <527A8B2FB8E742F9AC4063C8B3957071@us.oracle.com> <87sj4ijqa9.fsf@gmail.com> <60B13E9C42E44045B2EB9A043B959C4D@us.oracle.com> <87fw0htl0s.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <871ubsz7wr.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:16:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <871ubsz7wr.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:13:00 +0530") Message-ID: <87d2vbmuzq.fsf@mail.jurta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: 'David Koppelman' , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) >> `hi-yellow' is a meaningful name. Together with other complementary >> faces they cover the whole color space. > > It is difficult for me to believe that the original design intent was to > "cover color space". > > hi-black-b > hi-black-hb > hi-blue > hi-blue-b > hi-green > hi-green-b > hi-pink > hi-red-b > hi-yellow > > You see there are two blacks, two blues and two greens. Try > > C-u M-x list-colors-display RET hi- RET > > and convince yourself how close or far away it is from covering the > whole "color space". It seems like a mixed bag. If there is a design, > I am not seeing it. When I try `C-u M-x list-faces-display RET hi- RET' I see exactly the same colors as displayed in the first image in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB Primary colors: hi-red-b, hi-green-b, hi-blue-b. Secondary colors: hi-blue, hi-pink, hi-yellow. So there is a complete coverage of the colors evenly distributed on the color wheel. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 08 20:34:08 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2013 01:34:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40314 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UE8fn-0000hR-9R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:34:07 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:14889) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UE8fl-0000gz-VW for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:34:06 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFsoXZ8/2dsb2JhbABEDr8AF3OCHgEBBAFWIwULCw4mEhQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhiXmSIIFegjlc X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFsoXZ8/2dsb2JhbABEDr8AF3OCHgEBBAFWIwULCw4mEhQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhiXmSIIFegjlc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="3379282" Received: from 108-161-118-124.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([108.161.118.124]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 08 Mar 2013 20:33:16 -0500 Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 80BDAAE3FA; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 20:33:15 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: David Koppelman Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Message-ID: References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:33:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: (David Koppelman's message of "Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:55:28 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Jambunathan K , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) >> hi-lock-N >> highlight-N >> font-lock-user-N >> font-lock-highlight-N >> font-lock-extra-face-N The "font-lock-" names are due to history. There's no point using this scheme for new faces, especially for faces not directly linked to font-lock. > As for the convention of not naming or otherwise linking a face with > particular attributes (as some may interpret it), either it doesn't > apply here, or if it does, it's a good place to ignore it. I've argued > before that it does not apply because as most agree faces should be > defined for a particular purpose rather than for appearance, such as > for highlighting variable names. The face hi-yellow has a purpose: > highlight something with a background of yellow. It is named > appropriately and its attributes are so set. If there is a rule > somewhere which clearly states that this is not allowed, then that > rule should be broken in this case. How 'bout designing a concise "face description" format, so that instead of choosing "hi-yellow", the user can choose (say) "b:yellow", "f:blue", or "s:bold". This would give access to "any color", and in order not to overwhelm the user, the completion would default to only completing among a predefined set (corresponding to the current predefined faces)? Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 08 21:48:37 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2013 02:48:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40463 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UE9pt-0002Wc-7F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 21:48:37 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com ([209.85.160.49]:53344) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UE9pq-0002WQ-EL for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 21:48:35 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id xa12so1811031pbc.8 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 18:47:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=8XB1kCRxJvvwmafVKkzj4VzOqTTgNm7PwzGqGy+CyU0=; b=eE7EC/xrG+0xiCRrheisygXilDCsR+grQb5gu5zJKKWNREfPCdzIMrH1ImWq6L5zxn EahZGShavzToEz6xQ/BTTJ4iARzgfbRa5QhrYdacuvr/yJ5FtZpU/SEj5IrFjlLGRaRR k2TeertY/CQLQQzLQn7FhiCmzqJbKFi/ONQ8ThcLYEgWhL3oN2GSKe/rF0r9BUysA/Yj B6dcQ3fO3Jh4UylHHfUcV8eHL207MsyD6KsGoeyGzrGZmslxDKyQSPghJY2ORlEtcNNY 9N7EM+pHrRNESUhGBp1tTdD5xb88FDsr+UZhdfUhHSo0EaanUnfxlpbrE+tt8XfYh6WM nk/w== X-Received: by 10.68.211.103 with SMTP id nb7mr7609307pbc.140.1362797267949; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 18:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.242.225.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hs8sm7839027pbc.27.2013.03.08.18.47.44 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Mar 2013 18:47:46 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 08:17:47 +0530 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:33:15 -0500") Message-ID: <87ehfpb86k.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: David Koppelman , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Stefan Monnier writes: >>> hi-lock-N >>> highlight-N >>> font-lock-user-N >>> font-lock-highlight-N >>> font-lock-extra-face-N > > The "font-lock-" names are due to history. There's no point using > this scheme for new faces, especially for faces not directly linked to > font-lock. David had reservations with introducing hi-lock-N. I am not sure he continues to hold this reservation. For now, highlight-Ns for N=6 with highlight and highlight-1 aliased to each other. >> As for the convention of not naming or otherwise linking a face with >> particular attributes (as some may interpret it), either it doesn't >> apply here, or if it does, it's a good place to ignore it. I've argued >> before that it does not apply because as most agree faces should be >> defined for a particular purpose rather than for appearance, such as >> for highlighting variable names. The face hi-yellow has a purpose: >> highlight something with a background of yellow. It is named >> appropriately and its attributes are so set. If there is a rule >> somewhere which clearly states that this is not allowed, then that >> rule should be broken in this case. > > How 'bout designing a concise "face description" format, so that instead > of choosing "hi-yellow", the user can choose (say) "b:yellow", > "f:blue", or "s:bold". This would give access to "any color", and in > order not to overwhelm the user, the completion would default to only > completing among a predefined set (corresponding to the current > predefined faces)? So you are steering the discussion exactly to the opposite extreme. What is your motivation here. Where do you think jit named-faces could be useful, apart from highlighting case. > Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 08 22:27:00 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2013 03:27:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40502 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UEAR2-0003OF-Iq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 22:27:00 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:2839) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UEAQy-0003Ny-MC for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 22:26:57 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFsoXZ8/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOIYZwZgV6DFQ X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFsoXZ8/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOIYZwZgV6DFQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="3382706" Received: from 108-161-118-124.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([108.161.118.124]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 08 Mar 2013 22:26:08 -0500 Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id F266CAE3FA; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 22:26:09 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 Message-ID: References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> <87ehfpb86k.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 22:26:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87ehfpb86k.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Sat, 09 Mar 2013 08:17:47 +0530") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: David Koppelman , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > David had reservations with introducing hi-lock-N. I am not sure he > continues to hold this reservation. And I tend to agree with him > For now, highlight-Ns for N=6 with highlight and highlight-1 aliased to > each other. That'd be OK. > So you are steering the discussion exactly to the opposite extreme. > What is your motivation here. Where do you think jit named-faces could > be useful, apart from highlighting case. I'm not talking about face names. I'm only talking about the string the user would type in. They'd turn into (:background "yellow") style values to use for the `face' property (yup, you don't have to use named faces there). Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 08 01:34:56 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2013 05:34:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39270 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UP4jI-0002oq-75 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:34:56 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]:62966) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UP4jG-0002oj-5x for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:34:55 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 5so3055444pdd.17 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:31:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=tgBKlKqdFLYzYcTj45whzxGlFfuVTmfDLIJrHK5wb1I=; b=O1vB98CtZGtwyTwDoOoGY/Y2Ip4cwj1kBe2KH65XlXyL+bqGMr+oco90ii1hm9CXFG 8XWpjlQfM66xcxYsNkpjs0M1he/d02cZY+pNhGoj4Wn4d8IHOeNU+obUshGDgUT+qFZH RqnywpeYmr+HLsJyX/Hn+5ZAx0R9J4bbtyaMJyFxpiUZJez36O46lNfeABEslaFhFFkE U5CUjvD1qf5UZtE0fPb9dl/yJ4GF5jaxiqxbWmo8dQ6kva1LoRKdSewLnJzigKkYBvnM EF+1Un0DxRRABp9ql6dmLWJWNkvW8mnECB1KTPgBGzLyMJgbbCb09x6zkQZ3VCjMUky+ l7MQ== X-Received: by 10.67.10.228 with SMTP id ed4mr20824588pad.41.1365399082979; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian-6.05 ([101.63.136.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xl10sm36284763pac.15.2013.04.07.22.31.18 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:31:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Jambunathan K To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:01:07 +0530 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:33:15 -0500") Message-ID: <87y5cttwpw.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: David Koppelman , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) Stefan Monnier writes: > How 'bout designing a concise "face description" format, so that instead > of choosing "hi-yellow", the user can choose (say) "b:yellow", > "f:blue", or "s:bold". This would give access to "any color", and in > order not to overwhelm the user, the completion would default to only > completing among a predefined set (corresponding to the current > predefined faces)? I was trying to refine this line of thought. It leads to facemenu.el, specifically `facemenu-set-foreground' and `facemenu-set-background'. Stay with me, as I explain. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Currently highlighting works as follows: 1. Choose a regexp via minibuffer 2. Choose a face via minibuffer 3. Decorate the buffer via font lock keywords. Let me call this model, "Tell and Do". Highlighting is explicitly "Told" via minibuffer. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Let me propose a new scheme which will work as below. 1. Mark a word or a symbol under point C-M-@ 2. Decorate region which is but a instance to be highlighted M-x facemenu-set-foreground RET M-x facemenu-set-background RET M-x facemenu-set-bold RET & co. 3. Highlight M-s h r or C-x w h. Face properties used for highlighting will be use results determined by 2. This model is "Show and Tell". Face properties of highlighting are "Shown" right in the buffer that is edited (as opposed to a minibuffer prompt) and highlighting library infers the face properties based on text at point. ---------------------------------------------------------------- There is a functional parity between `hi-lock-face-defaults' and `facemenu-listed-faces'. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Problem statement/Possible way ahead ==================================== Of course facemenu.el, "works" only for certain modes. More specifically it works only for those modes that defines a `facemenu-enable-faces-p'. The notion of persistence of face properties (as in serializing/encoding face properties in to the edited text) is "in built" in to facemenu.el. I have more ideas on how facemenu.el can play nicely with other libraries. I will dump my thoughts in a separate bug report. ---------------------------------------------------------------- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 10 00:15:18 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2013 04:15:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42813 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UPmRJ-0002YH-A3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:15:17 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:50974) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UPmRG-0002Y9-4r for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:15:15 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id bh4so79993pad.40 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 21:11:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=IVZk5HRARAJitNqmDkReI9zK6AChfzsrviQ9jPJQYsQ=; b=eygdxNU3mDVsvQhk9juKGU2kjZiuJ4yxyw2/40HHaMY/ktWDJZ04QVz2dXl85ZPKXb UNhoqDqU9HMH/+KuJ/SpE3lax9Brvxj87/bBUsnsMBh4OJ+H7oI2CjWPVraWsr/XDS+q JgFVdrmP3OGZqWRSbMzr2RftST33HwOK51TOpxU/GBTfulFFQkSuYab22jtAXqacyJ5q rvHhTSI9TqdIXQ3VXLLDuWzkcBcjNc0/cAeHi30bTT5ka9Xcy0u3q1PK8mRk0648qXTJ tFRMFsAjYafuaK0hyxNi2k1mPkTYbzhhso+qncskW/3nxisFaIocEizTa1ArImfi0JFk 9t8g== X-Received: by 10.68.178.165 with SMTP id cz5mr424581pbc.214.1365567091848; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 21:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.242.208.26]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dr4sm4716645pbb.19.2013.04.09.21.11.28 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Apr 2013 21:11:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Jambunathan K To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 In-Reply-To: <87y5cttwpw.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:01:07 +0530") References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> <87y5cttwpw.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:41:19 +0530 Message-ID: <87ehejxbx4.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: David Koppelman , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Jambunathan K writes: > I have more ideas on how facemenu.el can play nicely with other > libraries. I will dump my thoughts in a separate bug report. See http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=14157 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 10 14:37:25 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2013 18:37:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44017 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UPztd-0001TP-Fy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:37:25 -0400 Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([130.39.16.10]:56522) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UPztb-0001TB-N7 for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:37:25 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4AAB28095; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:33:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ece.lsu.edu Received: from ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v6HacZMwD+Qx; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:33:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sky.ece.lsu.edu (sky.ece.lsu.edu [130.39.96.14]) by ecelsrv1.ece.lsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE1728081; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:33:37 -0500 (CDT) From: David Koppelman To: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> <87y5cttwpw.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:33:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87y5cttwpw.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:01:07 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Stefan Monnier , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) Jambunathan K writes: > Let me propose a new scheme which will work as below. ... I'm not sure I understand the point. I'm pretty sure you are not suggesting that the hi-lock commands be replaced by something like highlight-other-matches to be used after a sequence of facemenu commands. That would be too cumbersome. Stefan's concise face description format sounds reasonable, especially since it could be used in other modes maybe through a function like (concise-face-get-face STR) that creates a new face or returns an existing one. That would avoid loading hi-lock with unneeded complexity. I think there are more useful improvements than face handling that can be made to hi-lock. For example, a way to save highlighting patterns in a separate file. Jambunathan K writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: > >> How 'bout designing a concise "face description" format, so that instead >> of choosing "hi-yellow", the user can choose (say) "b:yellow", >> "f:blue", or "s:bold". This would give access to "any color", and in >> order not to overwhelm the user, the completion would default to only >> completing among a predefined set (corresponding to the current >> predefined faces)? > > I was trying to refine this line of thought. It leads to facemenu.el, > specifically `facemenu-set-foreground' and `facemenu-set-background'. > > Stay with me, as I explain. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Currently highlighting works as follows: > > 1. Choose a regexp via minibuffer > 2. Choose a face via minibuffer > 3. Decorate the buffer via font lock keywords. > > Let me call this model, "Tell and Do". Highlighting is explicitly > "Told" via minibuffer. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Let me propose a new scheme which will work as below. > > 1. Mark a word or a symbol under point > C-M-@ > > 2. Decorate region which is but a instance to be highlighted > > M-x facemenu-set-foreground RET > M-x facemenu-set-background RET > M-x facemenu-set-bold RET > & co. > > 3. Highlight > M-s h r or C-x w h. > > Face properties used for highlighting will be use results determined > by 2. > > This model is "Show and Tell". Face properties of highlighting are > "Shown" right in the buffer that is edited (as opposed to a minibuffer > prompt) and highlighting library infers the face properties based on > text at point. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > There is a functional parity between `hi-lock-face-defaults' and > `facemenu-listed-faces'. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Problem statement/Possible way ahead > ==================================== > > Of course facemenu.el, "works" only for certain modes. > > More specifically it works only for those modes that defines a > `facemenu-enable-faces-p'. The notion of persistence of face properties > (as in serializing/encoding face properties in to the edited text) is > "in built" in to facemenu.el. > > I have more ideas on how facemenu.el can play nicely with other > libraries. I will dump my thoughts in a separate bug report. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 11 00:29:11 2013 Received: (at 13686) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2013 04:29:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44552 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UQ98A-0004OU-U6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:29:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:37688) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UQ986-0004NC-5u for 13686@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:28:59 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id g10so641314pdj.20 for <13686@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:25:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=11Auz1jyvDnNYRkYiRrehpKFEV2JYw6c0IqkqGXOGaA=; b=SEcA5mhLAnDWwRZwMRnaa5Gu0GxK/aANd9IGOMHktZgv0J+P/QqT0Dj425bWU5s6ab NkVzDVsVTjIHTkJn7MXTXHM/AJ7LX6K9lf41saBBur4i3lhm6H+6hm7uM1RjN7nlc1OD IDwrCiG7ROYNiToeTSH8IzOQwweQa1ZdKtdEllMRjXokRifPta0pidGeMlzG5xa8Cqxu n5L0M2oyDiyhIEVzPNrEC5LDA2+l4p7Ig8qJXhZ7spA9LzfOWfHEiCXsHy0VnSd60Zms NVGtqpKnHK/e6WzuZk29ROlcOtvQCaRsJ86/6whh/FA+/GIcVlHfKe8uJg2/Vn915fVW xZPg== X-Received: by 10.68.226.106 with SMTP id rr10mr6440768pbc.127.1365654310174; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.242.225.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f8sm2480182pbj.45.2013.04.10.21.25.06 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:25:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jambunathan K To: David Koppelman Subject: Re: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1 References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> <7BC00EAA1AF8466D8F9C17B3CA4E82B8@us.oracle.com> <87bob65sbw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqtkxspi.fsf@gmail.com> <87y5cttwpw.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:54:57 +0530 In-Reply-To: (David Koppelman's message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:33:37 -0500") Message-ID: <87zjx566ee.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686 Cc: Stefan Monnier , Drew Adams , 13686@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) David Koppelman writes: > Stefan's concise face description format sounds reasonable How exhaustive should this "concise" description be? I think it might suffice to just look at those face specifications which facemenu offers. What could be the usecase for such a face description? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Search for "fg:" or "bg:" in facemenu. What I meant is the sequence of commands M-o b, M-o f black, M-o b yellow is indeed a mnemonic for creating "bold face, with black foreground and yellow background". There is no particular order in which they are composed and they are primitives in their own way. ---------------------------------------------------------------- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Nov 14 23:46:19 2013 Received: (at 13686-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 04:46:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53377 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhBIQ-0001Q6-IX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:46:18 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:54256) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhBIO-0001Pr-Cg for 13686-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:46:16 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id kp14so1493458pab.37 for <13686-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:46:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=J031GXewnaACqsprHRq7ZhAivpOG36ggI7TgI07VQ78=; b=Va6J6hfKTCYPgSDa5qbLSXGXoF/sPeSXC9r40cEpuK5VusbeprOP89Fn5ijkAAvK0U 9j+Q6Da6seoARW8D8sMA/6/77BCesJxfVHE3+WpgobQm9wWsJbW06gI/VtZV1FSZYIvg opmJR/+MIbY28byEJQj63FtxGTQaHbDopqLimkZbVUai1CgNfdGsbPQMfmDi+frOmoF1 if/Mm8CzLq+2fwT6HquuQ2c89JGF9lS9h5/+9NmpZTfobrkliNk3cTkcYduboLxS7eXS 2YZ/9/PoDDkBc5209iFsP0rGVoxGjmZ1TY6lRyVcVIANBi/OXeyHvU5ssqVCvpGP8IyK BOjQ== X-Received: by 10.68.137.138 with SMTP id qi10mr4817161pbb.113.1384490770241; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:46:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.27.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ja5sm934341pbc.14.2013.11.14.20.46.08 for <13686-done@debbugs.gnu.org> (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:46:09 -0800 (PST) From: Jambunathan K To: 13686-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#13686: 24.3.50; Re-look hi-lock-face-defaults (aka Provide more "core" faces for highlighting) References: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:15:55 +0530 In-Reply-To: <878v6vidh7.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:44:28 +0530") Message-ID: <87r4ainugs.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13686-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) OP here. Closed. From unknown Fri Jun 20 07:21:48 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:24:29 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator