GNU bug report logs - #44689
28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown backend

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 44689 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 44689 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown backend
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:17:18 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

When Flymake has not yet checked the backend of a visited file it
displays a question mark on the mode line next to its lighter text.
This "?" indicator is fontified with the 'mode-line' face, which means
that it inherits properties such as ':box', ':background', and
potentially others.

The attached patch changes fontification to 'mode-line-emphasis', which
is a face that is specifically designed for drawing attention to such
indicators.

This allows users/themes to maintain a consistent presentation for their
mode lines, regardless of whether they are active or not.

The attached screenshots show the before and after states with all
themes disabled.  Focus on the inactive mode line at the middle of the
screen.

If maintainers think that this change does not provide sufficient
emphasis, I would suggest we look into updating the specifications of
'mode-line-emphasis' instead of using an inappropriate face for
individual indicators.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Protesilaos

-- 
Protesilaos Stavrou
protesilaos.com

[0001-Use-appropriate-face-for-Flymake-unknown-backend.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[flymake-unknown-backend-after.png (image/png, attachment)]

[flymake-unknown-backend-before.png (image/png, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown
 backend
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 23:20:21 +0100

Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com> writes:

> The attached patch changes fontification to 'mode-line-emphasis', which
> is a face that is specifically designed for drawing attention to such
> indicators.

I'm not sure why it's useful to draw attention to this bit in the mode
line, though.  Is that something users would find useful to have their
attentions drawn to?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #11 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown
 backend
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 07:38:43 +0200

On 2020-11-16, 23:20 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> wrote:

> Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com> writes:
>
>> The attached patch changes fontification to 'mode-line-emphasis', which
>> is a face that is specifically designed for drawing attention to such
>> indicators.
>
> I'm not sure why it's useful to draw attention to this bit in the mode
> line, though.  Is that something users would find useful to have their
> attentions drawn to?

Perhaps João can answer your question (in cc).

The current design draws a lot of attention to itself when the modeline
is inactive, because it inherits the style of the active modeline---so
it gets a box property and a different background.

'mode-line-emphasis' just feels like a more suitable choice for a face,
if emphasis in the mode line is the ultimate goal.  Otherwise I would
personally prefer no face whatsoever.

-- 
Protesilaos Stavrou
protesilaos.com

Message #14 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
To: Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50;
 Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown backend
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:20:17 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:38 AM Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
wrote:

> > I'm not sure why it's useful to draw attention to this bit in the mode
> > line, though.  Is that something users would find useful to have their
> > attentions drawn to?
>
> Perhaps João can answer your question (in cc).

Thanks. I dunno, really.  That '?' is placed whenever Flymake has
been activated but no suitable backend has been found, or no
backend has been found to answer suitably. This is an abnormal
situation.  It points to some misconfiguration, in principle. Does
that merit "immediate attention"?  I'd say "some attention", but
I'm ignorant of the policy and the associated face here, so I'll leave
this hair-splitting to you, and you have my blessing for choosing
a different face or even no face at all.

> 'mode-line-emphasis' just feels like a more suitable choice for a face,
> if emphasis in the mode line is the ultimate goal.

The ultimate goal is to have Flymake working.  The `?` is something
you or some package you're using has misconfigured.

Lars, this reminds me of a bug report (completely forgot the number),
where the mode-line's indicators would become configurable via some
"format string" mini-language, or something like that.  Maybe we should
take that up again, and maybe abandon the "format string" and make it
use the same kind of language used in mode-line-format itself. Regardless
of the simpler decision in this bug, it should allow, in principle, that
demanding users modify Flymake's mode-line indications to their
liking.

João

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #17 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
To: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown
 backend
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:47:03 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2020-11-17, 09:20 +0000, João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>> > I'm not sure why it's useful to draw attention to this bit in the mode
>> > line, though.  Is that something users would find useful to have their
>> > attentions drawn to?
>>
>> Perhaps João can answer your question (in cc).
>
> Thanks. I dunno, really.  That '?' is placed whenever Flymake has
> been activated but no suitable backend has been found, or no
> backend has been found to answer suitably. This is an abnormal
> situation.  It points to some misconfiguration, in principle. Does 
> that merit "immediate attention"?  I'd say "some attention", but 
> I'm ignorant of the policy and the associated face here, so I'll leave
> this hair-splitting to you, and you have my blessing for choosing
> a different face or even no face at all.

While you discuss the rest of the issue with Lars, just to point out
that the "?" is easy to get.

On 'emacs -Q':

    (require 'flymake)
    (setq flymake-start-on-flymake-mode nil)

Now visit an '*.el' file.  Activate 'flymake-mode' and check the
modeline.

Screenshot attached.

Thanks again for your contributions!

-- 
Protesilaos Stavrou
protesilaos.com

[flymake-unknown-backend-emacs-q.png (image/png, attachment)]

Message #20 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
To: Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown
 backend
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:30:59 +0000

Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com> writes:

> On 2020-11-17, 09:20 +0000, João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> > I'm not sure why it's useful to draw attention to this bit in the mode
>>> > line, though.  Is that something users would find useful to have their
>>> > attentions drawn to?
>>>
>>> Perhaps João can answer your question (in cc).
>>
>> Thanks. I dunno, really.  That '?' is placed whenever Flymake has
>> been activated but no suitable backend has been found, or no
>> backend has been found to answer suitably. This is an abnormal
>> situation.  It points to some misconfiguration, in principle. Does 
>> that merit "immediate attention"?  I'd say "some attention", but 
>> I'm ignorant of the policy and the associated face here, so I'll leave
>> this hair-splitting to you, and you have my blessing for choosing
>> a different face or even no face at all.
>
> While you discuss the rest of the issue with Lars, just to point out
> that the "?" is easy to get.
>
> On 'emacs -Q':
>
>     (require 'flymake)
>     (setq flymake-start-on-flymake-mode nil)
>
> Now visit an '*.el' file.  Activate 'flymake-mode' and check the
> modeline.

Indeed, that's not a misconfiguration.  But I'd say it's an edge case:
normally one does want to start checking when enabling flymake, I just
kept that option there for backward compatibility.  I personally see no
use for it, do you?

João

Message #23 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
To: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown
 backend
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 07:58:51 +0200

On 2020-11-17, 16:30 +0000, João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>> [...]
>>
>> just to point out that the "?" is easy to get.
>>
>> On 'emacs -Q':
>>
>>     (require 'flymake)
>>     (setq flymake-start-on-flymake-mode nil)
>>
>> Now visit an '*.el' file.  Activate 'flymake-mode' and check the
>> modeline.
>
> Indeed, that's not a misconfiguration.  But I'd say it's an edge case:
> normally one does want to start checking when enabling flymake, I just
> kept that option there for backward compatibility.  I personally see no
> use for it, do you?

The fact that the option exists means that some people might be using
it.  Is there any immediate downside to keeping it around?  Personally,
I am fine with any decision you may take and agree that it is not what
one would normally expect when activating 'flycheck-mode'.

What I wanted to suggest when I opened this issue is merely this: if
this "edge case" option remains present, please consider reviewing the
face it uses (with 'mode-line-emphasis' being more appropriate than
'mode-line').

-- 
Protesilaos Stavrou
protesilaos.com

Message #26 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
To: Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50;
 Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown backend
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 08:29:22 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 05:58 Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
wrote:

> On 2020-11-17, 16:30 +0000, João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> just to point out that the "?" is easy to get.
> >>
> >> On 'emacs -Q':
> >>
> >>     (require 'flymake)
> >>     (setq flymake-start-on-flymake-mode nil)
> >>
> >> Now visit an '*.el' file.  Activate 'flymake-mode' and check the
> >> modeline.
> >
> > Indeed, that's not a misconfiguration.  But I'd say it's an edge case:
> > normally one does want to start checking when enabling flymake, I just
> > kept that option there for backward compatibility.  I personally see no
> > use for it, do you?
>
> The fact that the option exists means that some people might be using
> it.  Is there any immediate downside to keeping it around?  Personally,
> I am fine with any decision you may take and agree that it is not what
> one would normally expect when activating 'flycheck-mode'.
>
> What I wanted to suggest when I opened this issue is merely this: if
> this "edge case" option remains present, please consider reviewing the
> face it uses (with 'mode-line-emphasis' being more appropriate than
> 'mode-line').
>

Yes, I am totally fine with changing the face, or using some other
character to indicate this situation. I just don't see it as super priority
because it's an odd setting to have, in my opinion, but patches welcome.

João

>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #29 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown
 backend
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:18:13 +0100

João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Lars, this reminds me of a bug report (completely forgot the number),
> where the mode-line's indicators would become configurable via some 
> "format string" mini-language, or something like that.  Maybe we should 
> take that up again, and maybe abandon the "format string" and make it
> use the same kind of language used in mode-line-format itself.

Yes, it should be possible to basically allow the same customisations,
but have a different "backend" for `format-string' that generates mode
line constructs instead of a propertized string.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #32 received at 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 44689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Protesilaos Stavrou <info <at> protesilaos.com>
Subject: Re: bug#44689: 28.0.50; Use appropriate face for Flymake unknown
 backend
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:23:33 +0100

João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Yes, I am totally fine with changing the face, or using some other
> character to indicate this situation. I just don't see it as super
> priority because it's an odd setting to have, in my opinion, but
> patches welcome.

I'm now just removed the face from the "?", which makes it look OK in
both active and inactive windows.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

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