GNU bug report logs -
#73862
[PATCH] Add `header-line-active` and `header-line-inactive` faces.
Previous Next
Reported by: trevor.m.murphy <at> gmail.com
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:58:02 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
> Cc: Aaron Jensen <aaronjensen <at> gmail.com>, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
> trevor.m.murphy <at> gmail.com, 73862 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2024 15:11:07 +0100
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> > We also haven't yet heard from Eshel.
>
> I don't have any concrete suggestions at this point. It's surely a
> complicated situation.
Did you try the patch I posted, and if you did, did it resolve your
original problems? That's what I wanted to hear, since you were one
of the two persons who raised these issues.
> The workaround of remapping both header-line-active and
> header-line-inactive instead of header-line seems to work. The way I
> see it, the essence of the issue is that the "face" abstraction is
> leaky, in the sense that some faces (these "basic faces") behave
> differently from other faces in some cases that involve inheritance and
> remapping.
AFAIK, only face-remapping behaves differently, and only when a basic
face inherits from another. The inheritance itself work as with other
faces.
> I think this calls for either changing the way basic faces are
> handled so they do behave like any other face, or clearly
> documenting their subtleties.
Patches to rework the faces support so that these idiosyncrasies are
removed will be most welcome. I just don't plan on doing that myself,
as I won't have time for that.
TIA
This bug report was last modified 214 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.