GNU bug report logs - #57499
Documentation bug in the docstring of set-face-attribute?

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 57499 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 57499 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#57499: Documentation bug in the docstring of
 set-face-attribute?
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:04:03 +0000

>> The docstring of set-face-attribute says:
>>
>> "As an exception, to reset the value of some attribute to `unspecified' 
>> in a way that overrides the non-`unspecified' value defined by the 
>> face's spec in `defface', for new frames, you must explicitly call this 
>> function with FRAME set to t and the attribute's value set to 
>> `unspecified'; just using FRAME of nil will not affect new frames in 
>> this case."
>>
>> Not only is that sentence hard to parse, it also seems wrong.
>>
>> Can someone come up with a scenario in which a call
>>
>> (set-face-attribute 'some-face nil :some-attribute 'unspecified)
>>
>> only affects existing frames?  In my testing it affects all frames 
>> (existing and future ones), and that's also what the code seems to do: 
>> set-face-attribute sets where to 0 when frame is nil, and calls 
>> internal-set-lisp-face-attribute with frame = 0, which according to the 
>> docstring of internal-set-lisp-face-attribute "means change the face on 
>> all frames, and change the default for new frames".
>
> This was discussed in bug#54156.  Are there any new findings or 
> considerations that would require to reopen that discussion?
>

As far as I can tell, there are, but if you disagree, feel free to close 
the bug.  Bug#54156 starts with someone telling that

(set-face-attribute 'some-face nil :background nil)

did not have an effect in new frames.  To which you replied:

>
> The correct way to do [that] is this:
> 
> (set-face-attribute 'some-face nil :background 'unspecified)
> (set-face-attribute 'some-face t :background 'unspecified)
>
> That is, one must explicitly call set-face-attribute with FRAME = t (as 
> well as nil), and pass 'unspecified' (NOT nil!) as the value.
>

and you later added that the call with frame = t is "a special trick to 
override defface with 'unspecified'".

It seems however that the call with frame = t is unnecessary, or at least, 
I could not come up with a scenario in which the first call does not also 
affect new frames.

Previous Next

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