From unknown Thu Sep 18 21:58:10 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#79083: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face Resent-From: Sean Whitton Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: eliz@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, bzg@gnu.org, prot@protesilaos.com, bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:28:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 79083 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 79083@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: eliz@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, bzg@gnu.org, prot@protesilaos.com X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-Xcc: eliz@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, bzg@gnu.org, prot@protesilaos.com Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.175328087012520 (code B ref -1); Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:28:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2025 14:27:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50634 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ueaRh-0003Fr-Ll for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:27:50 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:56318) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ueaRe-0003Fa-55 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:27:47 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ueaRI-0006Mk-M6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:27:26 -0400 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com ([34.202.193.197]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ueaRF-0003MI-Np for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:27:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=fwj8OUJu/a1cRHCUZQGrrjg/C7TkCBr3OmJomTZepJyIHyufXY4MEKcYmDQOg3l4RC0fWtgTWa5L/010GZBhu7+oXMztPDHMxlJhJX6/GyQhRsQQehmQFBpCBZCRsUMXAJqPN8AVQgHV7o85jcys4LDXJv0iG5+XepBUqCJ4Hgz3oH46xEyU6fS4GMchSssySb4iGopHhFoQ0zZa0NJcRFaynwd5wJywSLSGJ2+koPmH6PMkkdgkgud3HzE+4SG0+uiy4YIIBUj3gZ9kYWlH5tMHpsqcdZEiAo7mN64nm4QH6IeklbHuLAscRY96+JAs765EBZXB6EyMTUUTn2TSXA==; s=purelymail2; d=spwhitton.name; v=1; bh=AMAo+G3HuGE5ZCjKbQwXIHSG/EX83acjROSOwPIufz4=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=KKcKKWyonJ7105kbYisjpcYK/YV7Am8MqjvzeJfYPs309MCZ+/YkAjZj5invRsZPAiMri9NBAhzcttZeTUw0hepn+vHo58lP60M4P07ty1YIegLP0mG2t0K+VvsTI5/YWuqfrUovJQygB5mzeapCQ8gZD9PXRPR4PXNaqEFelDr9MlbHghmrOgqty+Fwds8HIVwIH8nocCgLwZHPDiY+dPmfeXsVMBW+SP/7X8/bm0ny5dOen3UyCGNm5VxoFNcJ5sRo7khtHAx7pzEdpkrD3/k//QzxfFgeVuFfLwx8EwQKE5O5jxfU1mMbcJ0nW8mHokXqdvYS7GRlR/aZ/SHGqQ==; s=purelymail2; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=AMAo+G3HuGE5ZCjKbQwXIHSG/EX83acjROSOwPIufz4=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date; Feedback-ID: 20115:3760:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id -1363439749 for (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by zephyr.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ED5809401A1; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:27:14 +0100 (BST) From: Sean Whitton Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:27:14 +0100 Message-ID: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=34.202.193.197; envelope-from=spwhitton@spwhitton.name; helo=sendmail.purelymail.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-debbugs-cc: eliz@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, bzg@gnu.org, prot@protesilaos.com Hello, There are a couple of related issues I would like to resolve with the fixed-pitch face. (1) I had assumed that the purpose of this face was solely to be fixed pitch even when the default face uses a variable pitch font. A Lisp program could use this face when something really must display as fixed pitch. But in [1] Eli writes: > Did you expect the fixed-pitch face to have the same font as the > default face? If so, it's a wrong expectation: we deliberately > defined the fixed-pitch face to have a different typeface, so that it > stands out. This is not incompatible with being a face that's always fixed pitch no matter whether the default face is fixed pitch, but it does mean that themes, or the user, shouldn't usually customise default and fixed-pitch to use the same typeface. If this is the idea, then it should be documented, and I would propose to do so as follows: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- diff --git a/lisp/faces.el b/lisp/faces.el index cf81013118b..ad5b467b9e2 100644 --- a/lisp/faces.el +++ b/lisp/faces.el @@ -2463,7 +2463,11 @@ underline (defface fixed-pitch '((t :family "Monospace")) - "The basic fixed-pitch face." + "The basic fixed-pitch face. +This face is intended to be visually distinct from the `default' face on +graphical frames, even when the `default' face also uses a fixed-pitch +typeface. In practice this means that this face should always use a +different typeface to the `default' face's typeface." :group 'basic-faces) (defface fixed-pitch-serif --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- (2) The faces are not in fact visually distinct by default on GNU/Linux, though they are on the non-free macOS and MS-Windows platforms. This should be fixed. I am not sure where to look in the code base, though -- the different typefaces for default and fixed-pitch on MS-Windows, for example, aren't defined in faces.el, but presumably somewhere in C. Could I have a hint? [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-10/msg00396.html -- Sean Whitton From unknown Thu Sep 18 21:58:10 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#79083: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:46:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 79083 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Sean Whitton Cc: 79083@debbugs.gnu.org, bzg@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, prot@protesilaos.com Received: via spool by 79083-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B79083.175328913316816 (code B ref 79083); Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:46:02 +0000 Received: (at 79083) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2025 16:45:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51334 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uecay-0004N4-T4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 12:45:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52350) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uecav-0004Ma-FM for 79083@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 12:45:30 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uecao-0000Fo-8a; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 12:45:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=+qurN6+rEj8tpBioHG7waB0ehzgw8QQbtw+wwLNkTnE=; b=Oqqggn4Ww9rp GujKjvmCr/f5cCM/dzO6zpMg/oXtGy60mI0aVN5Q4i+BejNSdUCHrQjgijT809mqDstqDxdLtCVAx JfCitSYcYxLob/4m/mKS2Qic1OwoUFTji1clt7TsVV0Se3sroLXW/TOI5K58ImsQv77BE00DJJ6/E CqCrEfqihWv2ls+JVfBHHZgeS1yD52u2HIbfzCikTar4QKNvTw5+//zYiC5TsNhWCfGVFa62OVhHW TIKWTp8GXtk3OltLTZvWrZu72CpI74h2nfbl5QyLOM6fXIszbDxsVEPZShOlDiiMTiOfiIBmfFJZ0 mMdIhLU+AD8UsAh1uuzJAQ==; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 19:45:19 +0300 Message-Id: <86a54u7t5s.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:27:14 +0100) References: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Cc: eliz@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, bzg@gnu.org, prot@protesilaos.com > From: Sean Whitton > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:27:14 +0100 > > (1) > I had assumed that the purpose of this face was solely to be fixed pitch > even when the default face uses a variable pitch font. A Lisp program > could use this face when something really must display as fixed pitch. > > But in [1] Eli writes: > > Did you expect the fixed-pitch face to have the same font as the > > default face? If so, it's a wrong expectation: we deliberately > > defined the fixed-pitch face to have a different typeface, so that it > > stands out. > > This is not incompatible with being a face that's always fixed pitch no > matter whether the default face is fixed pitch, but it does mean that > themes, or the user, shouldn't usually customise default and fixed-pitch > to use the same typeface. If this is the idea, then it should be > documented, and I would propose to do so as follows: Sorry, I object to codifying this kind of stuff. Faces exist in Emacs so that users and distros could change them however they wish. If they want fixed-pitch to look the same as the default face, they should be free to do that. If the result is not to their liking (which is in the eyes of the beholder), they will see it soon enough and decide then what they want to do with it. The mere fact that there is a separate face is already a clear sign that we _recommend_ it to look differently. There should be no reason to say anything beyond that. > (2) > The faces are not in fact visually distinct by default on GNU/Linux, It depends on the font back-end, AFAIK. Only some of them use the Monospace family for the default face's font, see x_default_font_parameter. > though they are on the non-free macOS and MS-Windows platforms. This > should be fixed. Not sure about the "should" part. Do people think the typeface used for symbols in Info manuals looks sub-optimally on GNU/Linux, and would like it to look differently? If enough users think that, we could try a different definition. But there be dragons: to change that we need to modify the font family for the default face so that it is different from the family of the fixed-pitch face, and such changes might be met with resistance by some parts of the community. That is why I suggest that we consider this carefully and thoroughly. In general, I'd let these sleeping dogs lie. > I am not sure where to look in the code base, though > -- the different typefaces for default and fixed-pitch on MS-Windows, > for example, aren't defined in faces.el, but presumably somewhere in C. It's in faces.el, see face-font-family-alternatives. And it isn't Windows specific, contrary to what you thought ;-) From unknown Thu Sep 18 21:58:10 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#79083: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face Resent-From: Protesilaos Stavrou Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 06:49:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 79083 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Sean Whitton Cc: 79083@debbugs.gnu.org, bzg@gnu.org, eliz@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net Received: via spool by 79083-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B79083.175333972319336 (code B ref 79083); Thu, 24 Jul 2025 06:49:01 +0000 Received: (at 79083) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Jul 2025 06:48:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54269 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uepkx-00051o-0V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 02:48:43 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:40965) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uepkt-00051N-Ow for 79083@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 02:48:41 -0400 Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2C7D1F68E; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 06:48:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protesilaos.com; s=gm1; t=1753339713; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hg2UzP3UON0HWieFC3k1ZlXnOYbP8F/K+FdH5SaXb6c=; b=fPEdq553OnZKawHZJoa1xqeIM8DkEZrUNHBrz5D/pFuc1EAJzSNVTLtMzvnsP7XUyWOwqZ Je/GR31QQD4YqxBqRkBU0tyDWKUh+gm8IOE5sDdmyBT20qVZiRXIT1FxO4Xd+XXbgLe92m NZkvMCgzgTthSg3NDTNQ82tp/fUo9SUIAM6+iJXPpUIQNck3JP6xjvNJPNF3Mi/whP5Voi neYRS3VnngV+YIX9kZeaNslE5SeTNo+dCqNuAgtfMOJqOULScWpegKO9QOJjfM1ooqPmnU IoX7+gP1kKXU7afPPJB1uSjmPsjbVGLd8KrarAtNhgCxX25eYl0mAP2rGnwEaQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:48:32 +0300 From: Protesilaos Stavrou In-Reply-To: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> References: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: prot@protesilaos.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-GND-State: clean X-GND-Score: -100 X-GND-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdefgdejleeljecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfitefpfffkpdcuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepggffhffvvefujghfkfigtgfgsehtjehjtddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrhhothgvshhilhgrohhsucfuthgrvhhrohhuuceophhrohhtsehprhhothgvshhilhgrohhsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeettdffhedvkeevffefteejjeefteeuhedtueejfeeguefhhfdvudeludevvdffvdenucfkphepuddtrddvtddtrddvtddurddvheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpedutddrvddttddrvddtuddrvdehpdhhvghlohepfigvsghmrghilhdrghgrnhguihdrnhgvthdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehprhhothesphhrohhtvghsihhlrghoshdrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedprhgtphhtthhopehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvgdprhgtphhtthhopeejledtkeefseguvggssghughhsrdhgnhhurdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepvghlihiisehgnhhurdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohephigrnhhtrghrledvsehpohhsthgvohdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopegsiihgsehgnhhurdhorhhg X-GND-Sasl: prot@protesilaos.com X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On 2025-07-23 17:27, Sean Whitton wrote: > X-debbugs-cc: eliz@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, bzg@gnu.org, > prot@protesilaos.com > > Hello, Hello Sean, > [...] > > This is not incompatible with being a face that's always fixed pitch no > matter whether the default face is fixed pitch, but it does mean that > themes, or the user, shouldn't usually customise default and > fixed-pitch > to use the same typeface. If this is the idea, then it should be > documented, and I would propose to do so as follows: I do not see a problem with 'default' and 'fixed-pitch' using the same font family if that is monospaced. Interfaces/users/themes that absolutely need to distinguish regular text from "monospaced" text, like Info, should rely on more than just the font family (e.g. the 'Info-quoted' face can have a distinct foreground value). Personally, I would never want 'fixed-pitch' to be a monospaced family other than my preferred one. Different fonts come with differing inherent metrics. Some fonts look taller/shorter than others even when they are set to the same ':height' value. If you force users to apply distinct fonts, then you must expect them to set 'fixed-pitch' to a ':height' like '0.9' or '1.1'. This is inconvenient and dependent on the exact ':height' value of the 'default' face. The relative height needs to be adjusted when the default font is made smaller/larger, which makes 'text-scale-adjust' awkward. Another common problem with fonts of varying heights is how the text can appear to jump around when the user scrolls to a point that has a taller line. I remember dealing with this recently while 'display-line-numbers-mode' was enabled. > [...] > > (defface fixed-pitch > '((t :family "Monospace")) > - "The basic fixed-pitch face." > + "The basic fixed-pitch face. > +This face is intended to be visually distinct from the `default' face > on > +graphical frames, even when the `default' face also uses a fixed-pitch > +typeface. In practice this means that this face should always use a > +different typeface to the `default' face's typeface." > :group 'basic-faces) I would personally not follow this guideline. Yes, 'fixed-pitch' should be a monospaced font to be consistent with the expectations it sets. Other than that, the user can pick any font family they want. All the best, Protesilaos (or simply "Prot") From unknown Thu Sep 18 21:58:10 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#79083: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face Resent-From: Sean Whitton Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 07:48:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 79083 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 79083@debbugs.gnu.org, bzg@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, prot@protesilaos.com Received: via spool by 79083-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B79083.17533432492738 (code B ref 79083); Thu, 24 Jul 2025 07:48:02 +0000 Received: (at 79083) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Jul 2025 07:47:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54516 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ueqfo-0000i5-UE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 03:47:29 -0400 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com ([34.202.193.197]:59302) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ueqfm-0000hb-09 for 79083@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 03:47:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=Hi9lDxhxwrmT4pQzl/K5xozjke60HqC+aTyC1sreDwgYEKsZD9t/gDGebuIjGnDMxrqd29TuZLpgyHq4+upl2XDCV48Ad+CnU9NJOwdXAY169ztm1+4lEEN3cyVbotv9uDbE2lTgOlqQhEmG6u5m0pqgD1AqGbxVgbefEBTZsPw7FZi7D4z4KtOvNBnNp2YUaKNdgdNJzcmwsGcN1DSW7MyyeYaRMfM8SCNhpE35WmiNPDImMrK2egRpOp9OGPSsw+Yb0vS5QMV23XK3qXd6S4hmAPxlD2h60Pjd1DGOvykMO7CuxcHMZJWG/MLRw9S/7/7oP8ET1QrzQC9SoA80yQ==; s=purelymail2; d=spwhitton.name; v=1; bh=Rj7fqnTukaQ+/e7rvHkzIvAZpq7TCtsSeoylJHIAnjM=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=XQ7vW1HozcPUj+jVugf4EGjG3LsNeGeE8QZkncXMR/wniEPXRtTyjALUnPW0hovjq+DhKMnJ0b0lyUhPw8b0yjvJcOb7rs89SpCnV5K5shUwQOQ+4Rnov2TH61Y5gpa51X7HLvSQ7G4ZGXlB0oIz8iwQ/p1pIPjREVuXQyooQX9RBqD5c6OWMfDg++/uiNFu0cs3wh5VvVK6r5w8kAk5CtFd0D/x1hz2IF34sri1Ez9isyzpl/rrGw/FEOGI+1IenDMY2vD0tkHvEKyW9T259oa1zETsyzlLmOqwnCDpk9i0T0UHxDY3FqbUhsCyrE/QIIgGalDvgn88YFbnwsYzfQ==; s=purelymail2; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=Rj7fqnTukaQ+/e7rvHkzIvAZpq7TCtsSeoylJHIAnjM=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date; Feedback-ID: 20115:3760:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: 79083@debbugs.gnu.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id 1724156063; (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Thu, 24 Jul 2025 07:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by zephyr.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 986209409A7; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:47:17 +0100 (BST) From: Sean Whitton In-Reply-To: <86a54u7t5s.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> <86a54u7t5s.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:47:17 +0100 Message-ID: <87qzy6t4hm.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hello, On Wed 23 Jul 2025 at 07:45pm +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Sorry, I object to codifying this kind of stuff. Faces exist in Emacs > so that users and distros could change them however they wish. If > they want fixed-pitch to look the same as the default face, they > should be free to do that. If the result is not to their liking > (which is in the eyes of the beholder), they will see it soon enough > and decide then what they want to do with it. > > The mere fact that there is a separate face is already a clear sign > that we _recommend_ it to look differently. There should be no reason > to say anything beyond that. It was not a clear sign at all for me, and it is highly unlikely that I am the only one. The only indication was a mailing list post from you. I don't desire to codify it, only to write down this design idea in the code or docs, so that it's included with Emacs, and more accessible than mailing list posts. Actually, I think "recommend", as you wrote, is stronger than necessary. I just want to note somewhere that in the default look of Emacs, they're meant to be visually distinguishable. That's it. I'll plan to add a simple comment next to the definition of fixed-pitch. >> (2) >> The faces are not in fact visually distinct by default on GNU/Linux, > > It depends on the font back-end, AFAIK. Only some of them use the > Monospace family for the default face's font, see > x_default_font_parameter. > >> though they are on the non-free macOS and MS-Windows platforms. This >> should be fixed. > > Not sure about the "should" part. Do people think the typeface used > for symbols in Info manuals looks sub-optimally on GNU/Linux, and > would like it to look differently? If enough users think that, we > could try a different definition. But there be dragons: to change > that we need to modify the font family for the default face so that it > is different from the family of the fixed-pitch face, and such changes > might be met with resistance by some parts of the community. That is > why I suggest that we consider this carefully and thoroughly. In > general, I'd let these sleeping dogs lie. > >> I am not sure where to look in the code base, though >> -- the different typefaces for default and fixed-pitch on MS-Windows, >> for example, aren't defined in faces.el, but presumably somewhere in C. > > It's in faces.el, see face-font-family-alternatives. And it isn't > Windows specific, contrary to what you thought ;-) Thank you for the references. Certainly the default face's font family on GNU/Linux should not change. But possibly the fixed-pitch face's font family on GNU/Linux should change, in order that it is actually distinct. Based on what I've read this is my understanding: - the default font family is selected by x_default_font_parameter. - on Windows this will yield Courier. - on GNU/Linux with Cairo, this is done by resolving the Cairo/Xft alias "monospace-10" to a concrete font family. - the fixed-pitch font family is selected by resolving the "Monospace" Emacs font family alias according to face-font-family-alternatives: ("Monospace" "Cascadia Code" "Lucida Console" "courier" "fixed") - on Windows at least one of Cascadia Code and Lucida Console will be installed by default; on recent Windows you'll get Cascadia Code, which is visually distinct from Courier, as desired - on GNU/Linux chances are none of them are installed (I didn't even have Courier on my machine until just now) and so you'll get 'fixed', which presumably is resolved concretely to the very same font family that "monospace-10" is resolved to. Hence not visually distinct. So I think the fix for the bug is to add some font families to (assoc "Monospace" face-font-family-alternatives) which are both: 1. very commonly present on GNU/Linux installations; and yet 2. not what "monospace-10" will typically resolve to on those installations. I don't know what font families would fit the bill, and I agree that it should be considered carefully and thoroughly. But is this a correct statement of the structure of the problem? -- Sean Whitton From unknown Thu Sep 18 21:58:10 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#79083: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 79083 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Sean Whitton Cc: 79083@debbugs.gnu.org, bzg@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, prot@protesilaos.com Received: via spool by 79083-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B79083.17533445338292 (code B ref 79083); Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:09:02 +0000 Received: (at 79083) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Jul 2025 08:08:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54610 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uer0X-00029f-6r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 04:08:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40856) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uer0U-00029G-FE for 79083@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 04:08:51 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uer0N-0007Vo-6H; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 04:08:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=QooultO+nfx5QYe0VhbZrUKhJsCFlPj8EVednEw2j6Q=; b=mYeRiCcpMECr WmiQnh4gvLgSRB0/Zb2CGWAkjKpnIfc+mXeRl8SF1QEUBHPxgXz0sSJxoV2uRUGso5rQhSnWjfjEQ YPqrnzBc9ZiY3tJM6PhI1VURTOWLo6/Z7nL7+hAZ194QflcvG5kDSFL84tagu/I6YYc2yDeabrC46 1Z0B2gi8OFY+2ZrrxX/qECH1zDH9GikQB1HLXkD/batrFe21IqflyWwCsWhp3ZKL7mlH+zCGHKhIR 9uroC3qPuhE2vxndQHd+gtAh4YkLTwGMShNPToY1abjdHwrDcLF+n4aLvOdiYJ5Xj5qrwasCjTN0f AMrfLpVtNAUrI1ANMCdQ2Q==; Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:08:36 +0300 Message-Id: <86jz3y57uj.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <87qzy6t4hm.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:47:17 +0100) References: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> <86a54u7t5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87qzy6t4hm.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Sean Whitton > Cc: 79083@debbugs.gnu.org, bzg@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, > prot@protesilaos.com > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:47:17 +0100 > > > The mere fact that there is a separate face is already a clear sign > > that we _recommend_ it to look differently. There should be no reason > > to say anything beyond that. > > It was not a clear sign at all for me, and it is highly unlikely that I > am the only one. The only indication was a mailing list post from you. Well, now you know. I realize that not every aspect of the Emacs design has its intent necessarily evident to everyone, but that doesn't yet mean we should make changes based on the fact that it takes time to understand the underlying ideas and their rationale. > I don't desire to codify it, only to write down this design idea in the > code or docs, so that it's included with Emacs, and more accessible than > mailing list posts. > > Actually, I think "recommend", as you wrote, is stronger than necessary. > I just want to note somewhere that in the default look of Emacs, they're > meant to be visually distinguishable. That's it. They are not "meant to be" distinguishable, we _think_ that it's a good idea to make them so. And Prot already posted his dissenting views in this particular case. > Certainly the default face's font family on GNU/Linux should not change. > But possibly the fixed-pitch face's font family on GNU/Linux should > change, in order that it is actually distinct. But that would mean the definition of the fixed-pitch face will use different families on GNU/Linux and on other platforms. We want to avoid that as much as possible. > - on GNU/Linux chances are none of them are installed (I didn't even > have Courier on my machine until just now) and so you'll get > 'fixed', which presumably is resolved concretely to the very same > font family that "monospace-10" is resolved to. Hence not visually > distinct. No, on GNU/Linux we request "Monospace" from Fontconfig, and use what it gives us. > So I think the fix for the bug is to add some font families to > (assoc "Monospace" face-font-family-alternatives) which are both: > 1. very commonly present on GNU/Linux installations; and yet > 2. not what "monospace-10" will typically resolve to on those > installations. This will probably not fix the issue, because (as the comment there says) face-font-family-alternatives is only used on systems without Fontconfig, which basically means we ignore it on GNU/Linux. We'd need to make changes in Fontconfig files, something that I think is not acceptable. > I don't know what font families would fit the bill, and I agree that it > should be considered carefully and thoroughly. What you see in the current code _is_ the product of carefully considering these issues, and also of many years of experience using the results. Personally, I wouldn't touch that with a 10-mile pole. Again, would you please state some real-life problems we are trying to fix here? From unknown Thu Sep 18 21:58:10 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: Sean Whitton Subject: bug#79083: closed (Re: bug#79083: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face) Message-ID: References: <87h5z0r93f.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 79083 X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs Reply-To: 79083@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:04:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1753430642-21657-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1753430642-21657-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #79083: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 79083@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 79083: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D79083 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1753430642-21657-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 79083-close) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Jul 2025 08:03:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60977 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ufDOX-0005bR-BR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 04:03:09 -0400 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com ([34.202.193.197]:33546) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ufDOU-0005ai-Mj for 79083-close@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 04:03:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=RmYHbIUYqyI/W+7KeuciHrWMzCuNOnOOY8hFlm7zy0XFsQ5rfoKq4DP9w+gC7zxzLluPvTiJkjtLBkQvXVm755BmAmxA6A5XVET+PQDwPJKObMh2TwhAlyyTHVb7ge5KDECUPp0UqHviosPDfgl9FXIarx0wJeMgLtgr5nPwAMaI20sCrntk4m4QIDpExKWuY54vD0Dl2wumlZY4rbqMGeIKnVQu+swY/mlt72Z4qZoyZwnu85FUjfuy7yLVAiN0RFk149qy4goHR77RuEi1uBv4waI+yDOM43Gp4sAVXMcNawH2xurjv0OW5KAbYGfLmDINko1Y/7q5biZ9QdCB5w==; s=purelymail2; d=spwhitton.name; v=1; bh=IkiOhUVlsVDlxx7qDUeQtqLUFGDQ8qsXD4cU2DsAsGg=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=ByW7fwkz/xW5M5MnvLScjzpLNXqpxkoicqZ86ivjuq3KOtl0VkKURARYJCwT8dX5HvSwgZXUiRSjmKKUhGUil+l7wDnAlZGdZ3jg9eWvHvPErkrf/VW0yU/ap2sEYBhccVUV+IiSn6WzkXwBDf0msZKmm1rJGpETWVGNe1F/L9IiQBCM96dt7/xUKQFLKzOXNzs2p/vtRk4JUGwO3btCtQLVWVCU9ceSVspu+z8Oq0pHF/+jPyHfyddm0JXSBZERTeO62hlIUTZrK7x6qSUuMZvE8IUdRiZidgkj57mdBm7yOmcY8PIHbwgxM9VMYNhiyOuEONP6RYKFF5BDP9rfww==; s=purelymail2; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=IkiOhUVlsVDlxx7qDUeQtqLUFGDQ8qsXD4cU2DsAsGg=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date; Feedback-ID: 20115:3760:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: 79083-close@debbugs.gnu.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id 1483867377; (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by zephyr.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2898E94009A; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:03:00 +0100 (BST) From: Sean Whitton To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#79083: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face In-Reply-To: <86jz3y57uj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> <86a54u7t5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87qzy6t4hm.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> <86jz3y57uj.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:03:00 +0100 Message-ID: <87h5z0r93f.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 79083-close Cc: bzg@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, 79083-close@debbugs.gnu.org, prot@protesilaos.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hello, On Thu 24 Jul 2025 at 11:08am +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Well, now you know. I realize that not every aspect of the Emacs > design has its intent necessarily evident to everyone, but that > doesn't yet mean we should make changes based on the fact that it > takes time to understand the underlying ideas and their rationale. Certainly. >> - on GNU/Linux chances are none of them are installed (I didn't even >> have Courier on my machine until just now) and so you'll get >> 'fixed', which presumably is resolved concretely to the very same >> font family that "monospace-10" is resolved to. Hence not visually >> distinct. > > No, on GNU/Linux we request "Monospace" from Fontconfig, and use what > it gives us. > >> So I think the fix for the bug is to add some font families to >> (assoc "Monospace" face-font-family-alternatives) which are both: >> 1. very commonly present on GNU/Linux installations; and yet >> 2. not what "monospace-10" will typically resolve to on those >> installations. > > This will probably not fix the issue, because (as the comment there > says) face-font-family-alternatives is only used on systems without > Fontconfig, which basically means we ignore it on GNU/Linux. We'd > need to make changes in Fontconfig files, something that I think is > not acceptable. Ah, I see, so another way to look at the issue is that we can't have two different Monospace fonts without giving up on having Fontconfig handle font selection for us. And being able to rely on Fontconfig has all sorts of benefits which are much more important than this. >> I don't know what font families would fit the bill, and I agree that it >> should be considered carefully and thoroughly. > > What you see in the current code _is_ the product of carefully > considering these issues, and also of many years of experience using > the results. Personally, I wouldn't touch that with a 10-mile pole. > > Again, would you please state some real-life problems we are trying to > fix here? Many parts of Emacs are very carefully considered, and other parts aren't, but look like they are until you investigate a bit. I was following my instincts to understand this part better and to write it down. Thank you for helping me understand the situation. I'll now close the bug. -- Sean Whitton ------------=_1753430642-21657-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2025 14:27:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50634 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ueaRh-0003Fr-Ll for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:27:50 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:56318) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ueaRe-0003Fa-55 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:27:47 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ueaRI-0006Mk-M6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:27:26 -0400 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com ([34.202.193.197]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ueaRF-0003MI-Np for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:27:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=fwj8OUJu/a1cRHCUZQGrrjg/C7TkCBr3OmJomTZepJyIHyufXY4MEKcYmDQOg3l4RC0fWtgTWa5L/010GZBhu7+oXMztPDHMxlJhJX6/GyQhRsQQehmQFBpCBZCRsUMXAJqPN8AVQgHV7o85jcys4LDXJv0iG5+XepBUqCJ4Hgz3oH46xEyU6fS4GMchSssySb4iGopHhFoQ0zZa0NJcRFaynwd5wJywSLSGJ2+koPmH6PMkkdgkgud3HzE+4SG0+uiy4YIIBUj3gZ9kYWlH5tMHpsqcdZEiAo7mN64nm4QH6IeklbHuLAscRY96+JAs765EBZXB6EyMTUUTn2TSXA==; s=purelymail2; d=spwhitton.name; v=1; bh=AMAo+G3HuGE5ZCjKbQwXIHSG/EX83acjROSOwPIufz4=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=KKcKKWyonJ7105kbYisjpcYK/YV7Am8MqjvzeJfYPs309MCZ+/YkAjZj5invRsZPAiMri9NBAhzcttZeTUw0hepn+vHo58lP60M4P07ty1YIegLP0mG2t0K+VvsTI5/YWuqfrUovJQygB5mzeapCQ8gZD9PXRPR4PXNaqEFelDr9MlbHghmrOgqty+Fwds8HIVwIH8nocCgLwZHPDiY+dPmfeXsVMBW+SP/7X8/bm0ny5dOen3UyCGNm5VxoFNcJ5sRo7khtHAx7pzEdpkrD3/k//QzxfFgeVuFfLwx8EwQKE5O5jxfU1mMbcJ0nW8mHokXqdvYS7GRlR/aZ/SHGqQ==; s=purelymail2; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=AMAo+G3HuGE5ZCjKbQwXIHSG/EX83acjROSOwPIufz4=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date; Feedback-ID: 20115:3760:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id -1363439749 for (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by zephyr.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ED5809401A1; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:27:14 +0100 (BST) From: Sean Whitton To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 31.0.50; Inconsistencies wrt fixed-pitch face Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:27:14 +0100 Message-ID: <87frenm18d.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=34.202.193.197; envelope-from=spwhitton@spwhitton.name; helo=sendmail.purelymail.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-debbugs-cc: eliz@gnu.org, yantar92@posteo.net, bzg@gnu.org, prot@protesilaos.com Hello, There are a couple of related issues I would like to resolve with the fixed-pitch face. (1) I had assumed that the purpose of this face was solely to be fixed pitch even when the default face uses a variable pitch font. A Lisp program could use this face when something really must display as fixed pitch. But in [1] Eli writes: > Did you expect the fixed-pitch face to have the same font as the > default face? If so, it's a wrong expectation: we deliberately > defined the fixed-pitch face to have a different typeface, so that it > stands out. This is not incompatible with being a face that's always fixed pitch no matter whether the default face is fixed pitch, but it does mean that themes, or the user, shouldn't usually customise default and fixed-pitch to use the same typeface. If this is the idea, then it should be documented, and I would propose to do so as follows: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- diff --git a/lisp/faces.el b/lisp/faces.el index cf81013118b..ad5b467b9e2 100644 --- a/lisp/faces.el +++ b/lisp/faces.el @@ -2463,7 +2463,11 @@ underline (defface fixed-pitch '((t :family "Monospace")) - "The basic fixed-pitch face." + "The basic fixed-pitch face. +This face is intended to be visually distinct from the `default' face on +graphical frames, even when the `default' face also uses a fixed-pitch +typeface. In practice this means that this face should always use a +different typeface to the `default' face's typeface." :group 'basic-faces) (defface fixed-pitch-serif --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- (2) The faces are not in fact visually distinct by default on GNU/Linux, though they are on the non-free macOS and MS-Windows platforms. This should be fixed. I am not sure where to look in the code base, though -- the different typefaces for default and fixed-pitch on MS-Windows, for example, aren't defined in faces.el, but presumably somewhere in C. Could I have a hint? [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-10/msg00396.html -- Sean Whitton ------------=_1753430642-21657-1--