GNU bug report logs - #77715
[PATCH] Add ring-bell functions for mode line and header line.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #62 received at 77715 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: eg642616 <at> gmail.com, 77715 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: Re: bug#77715: [PATCH] Add ring-bell functions for mode line and
 header line.
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 09:23:38 -0400

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

On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 9:19 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 09:06:42 -0400
> > Cc: Elijah Gabe Pérez <eg642616 <at> gmail.com>,
> >       77715 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 7:35 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >  > +              (cookies (mapcar (lambda (f) (face-remap-add-relative
> f 'flash-face))
> >  > +                               flash-face-faces)))
> >
> >  Are you sure using face-remap-add-relative will work as expected with
> >  any face in flash-face-faces?  Support for face remapping is not
> >  magic, it must be explicitly coded in several places.  It might work
> >  quite well for basic faces, but I'm not sure what happens with faces
> >  defined by various packages.  For that reason, I'm not sure asking
> >  users to specify a list of faces is the best idea.  How many different
> >  faces did you test this with?  Did you try the default face, or
> >  diff-mode faces, for example?
> >
> > I use my version of this implementation with the following list of
> faces: '(internal-border tab-bar
> > mode-line-active mode-line-inactive)
>
> These are all basic faces (see xfaces.c), for which the C code applies
> face-remapping.  I asked about other faces.
>

I haven't tried others is what I was saying.  Elijah should test more faces
as part of the due diligence to get this into Emacs core.

>  > +    (unwind-protect
> >  > +        (sit-for flash-face-duration)
> >  > +      (mapc #'face-remap-remove-relative cookies))))
> >
> >  Using sit-for means any input event will interrupt the wait.  Other
> >  ring-bell-functions don't behave like that.  Are you sure sleep-for is
> >  not better for this purpose?
> >
> > My implementation uses sit-for and the duration is short enough (mine is
> set to 0.05 seconds) that this is
> > fine.  And if it were any longer, I'd want C-g to interrupt it and
> remove the remappings.
>
> What if the user want 0.1 sec, and there's an input event after just
> 10 msec?  The difference is perceptible by humans.
>

Same. The ring bell use case is sufficiently visually intrusive that if the
sit-for is interrupted by an input event, I'm good with that.

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

Previous Next

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