GNU bug report logs - #73862
[PATCH] Add `header-line-active` and `header-line-inactive` faces.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #36 received at 73862 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Aaron Jensen <aaronjensen <at> gmail.com>
Cc: trevor.m.murphy <at> gmail.com, me <at> eshelyaron.com, 73862 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#73862: [PATCH] Add `header-line-active` and
 `header-line-inactive` faces.
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 08:22:18 +0200

> From: Aaron Jensen <aaronjensen <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:06:26 -0800
> Cc: Trevor Murphy <trevor.m.murphy <at> gmail.com>, Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>, 73862 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
>  You were able to reproduce what? I don't think you posted a recipe to reproduce the problem. Please
>  do, if at all possible, preferably starting from "emacs -Q".
> 
> I didn't — I thought I mentioned that. I had intended to provide one as soon as I had a chance to, but it turns
> out that Eshel encountered the same issue and provided a recipe (thank you, Eshel). The only difference in
> my case is that face-remap-set-base is used, rather than face-remap-add-relative.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this same bug occurs in the mode-line as well as the header-line. I.e., there was an
> existing bug in the mode-line and it was replicated to the header-line after the two new faces were added.

If what you see is the same as Eshel, I will ask you the same
question: shouldn't you apply face-remapping to the 2 new faces
instead of the 'header-line' face from which they both inherit?
What happens if you do define remapping for those two new faces?

Previous Next

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