From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9353: 24.0.50; default grep file name face is uglier now Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:38:09 -0700 Message-ID: <637F68232D7D4E3295ADB6EA1CBB925A@us.oracle.com> References: <8762lnrxyl.fsf@mail.jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1314193118 16091 80.91.229.12 (24 Aug 2011 13:38:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9353@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Juri Linkov'" , "'Stefan Monnier'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 24 15:38:33 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QwDf7-0007C0-4g for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:38:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48104 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwDf6-0004Vx-NM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:38:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41163) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwDf4-0004VC-Iw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:38:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwDf3-0006nx-8h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:38:30 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:35129) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwDf3-0006nr-5p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:38:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QwDhW-0005tl-55; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:41:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:41:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9353 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9353-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9353.131419326022666 (code B ref 9353); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:41:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Aug 2011 13:41:00 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QwDhU-0005tW-Bq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:41:00 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QwDhS-0005tP-4h for 9353@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:40:59 -0400 Original-Received: from rtcsinet22.oracle.com (rtcsinet22.oracle.com [66.248.204.30]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p7ODcLRI022990 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:38:23 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by rtcsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7ODcK5I024155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:38:20 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt107.oracle.com (abhmt107.oracle.com [141.146.116.59]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p7ODcESC005148; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:38:14 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.58.10) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:38:13 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <8762lnrxyl.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Thread-Index: AcxiPPLrfa3vIqB5SJuTVbKi170QSgAJO3IQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: rtcsinet22.oracle.com [66.248.204.30] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4E54FECF.00C1,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:41:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:50281 Archived-At: > > The default font I use is readable in bold, because giving > > up on such a useful tool would be too bad (remember that I > > prefer to use the same color everywhere and distinguish > > things based on bold/italics/font), but > > that's just me. > > IIUC, the only Drew's objection is the face's color, not boldness, > because he uses a dim background. So we could change the color to > a darker green, that will also look better on the default > light background. No, actually I did & still do object to bold being part of the default definition. I said: For one thing, it should not be bold. We should almost never use a bold face as the default face for something, because boldness does not work well on some platforms and for some (many) faces. (And it is not about appearance against my background - I was just too lazy to make screenshots with Emacs -Q.) I won't argue that the bug should not be closed if you refuse to get rid of the bold part, but I think bold is a mistake for a default face - anywhere in Emacs. And yes, I know that we have other default faces that also use bold. That is a mistake too, IMHO. At least on Windows, even with the default emacs -Q font, I think bold is not very legible. I understand Stefan's personal choice to privilege bold, italic etc. instead of colors. But that's suitable as a personal customization, IMO, not as the default appearance. To me, the bold fonts I see are so bad that it reminds me of pre-anti-aliasing Emacs (Emacs 21). I remember some people arguing that the anti-aliased appearance was worse and that we should keep the Emacs 21 appearance. To each his own... No, I don't expect to convince you about this. Thanks for changing the color, anyway.