From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#51465: [External] : Re: bug#51465: 27.2; `face-all-attributes' doc or behavior (?) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 19:19:56 +0300 Message-ID: <831r43refn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h7d1rlk6.fsf@gnu.org> <83y26cqoo9.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18937"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 51465@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 29 18:21:59 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUdj-0004gl-Dc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 18:21:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40452 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUdh-0002v3-Oy for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:21:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43784) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUcu-00029t-AT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:21:09 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44152) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUco-000099-4z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:21:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUco-0000VE-0k for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:21:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:21:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 51465 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 51465-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B51465.16355244371870 (code B ref 51465); Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:21:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 51465) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Oct 2021 16:20:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55698 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUcO-0000U5-03 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:20:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46192) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUc8-0000Tc-NT for 51465@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:20:34 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42440) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUc3-0008Li-3z; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:20:15 -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=FgESkb/UFr5sdjN4VHtw2qpz9a1rXVrhcScwlBbXnG4=; b=YbsTXvsmZYR8 hlSRYAscpV/gU3ROKXaANplkRTEtTHLhI17WfHDIuHlvwhzLSvlYlz4wsatO9WZviWODELGMMZIgz T223jopq7SFNM9xgTltqq9kemQvZ6txh908FueUxl7HJJ8LWUF9tbo3UAF0cZaJ6+ShgomhZ6Z8Y1 SAFThDDbXoA7lxgpbcNkhgYc3W5a9Jg8YBPR1jJ9T+ayEVRxRTYPVVMup4dVVvEo+oux/PWxoPZ91 /toZ7qzUucT/jyGDs8mGNK4NupnqriJ9SguOmwBByOHQjk6K6VXBP6yXaM0F8M7VRGkB4rrOLGJJf mf9j2VT1+WgDii3QOQC7Nw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1295 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgUbz-0003XJ-P3; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:20:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Drew Adams on Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:11:22 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:218569 Archived-At: > From: Drew Adams > CC: "51465-done@debbugs.gnu.org" <51465-done@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:11:22 +0000 > > > No, it isn't wrong: the "default attributes for newly created frames" > > are those the face has before applying the definitions in defface. > > Hopefully that is what you've added to the doc, to clarify it. Yes. > That said and done, what a user expects as the > "default" behavior (for new frames, for example) > is very likely to differ from this other kind of > "default". When the frame is created, you see the faces after application of the spec in defface, so these defaults are never seen in that case. > I hope you've come up with some terminology to > distinguish the two, i.e., some way to talk about > (what I expect is) the more immediate/likely user > understanding of "default" for new frames. I see no reason to invent new terminology. I just explained what those defaults are and why they aren't seen after the frame is created. > > > (what's the point of returning `unspecified' everywhere?). > > > > Only if no default values were defined via set-face-attribute. > > OK, but what's the point in that case, even if > it's the only case? Not a rhetorical question. > I expect there is some use/point; but I have no > idea what it might be. I don't know either. This is an old function; perhaps it can be useful in some rare cases.