GNU bug report logs - #13686
24.3.50; Re-look hi-lock-face-defaults (aka Provide more "core" faces for highlighting)

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Jambunathan K'" <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 'David Koppelman' <koppel <at> ece.lsu.edu>, 'Stefan Monnier' <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 13686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#13686: hi-yellow vs. hi-lock-1
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:38:03 -0800

> > 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.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.