From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#59347: 29.0.50; `:family` face setting ignored Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 15:33:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83bkp04gjl.fsf@gnu.org> <83leo42vm9.fsf@gnu.org> <0d1ea3007fd94b7ae0b1@heytings.org> <83r0xv1649.fsf@gnu.org> <0d1ea3007f532a493429@heytings.org> <83cz9f12bh.fsf@gnu.org> <835yewleyn.fsf@gnu.org> <83tu2b9rlx.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0347gtu.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30492"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 59347@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 08 16:34:12 2022 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 1p3IuZ-0007c5-OZ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 16:34:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p3IuS-0002aS-5b; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 10:34:04 -0500 Original-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 1p3IuQ-0002ZW-UW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 10:34:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p3IuQ-0005v7-Il for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 10:34:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p3IuP-0004Ac-Uq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 10:34:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gregory Heytings Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 15:34:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 59347 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 59347-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B59347.167051363216024 (code B ref 59347); Thu, 08 Dec 2022 15:34:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 59347) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2022 15:33:52 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57444 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p3IuG-0004AO-4w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 10:33:52 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:49020) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p3IuC-0004AH-VW for 59347@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 10:33:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1670513627; bh=DdWYekJ5KfDvyZMDF6uTZDqs2n0ph0xL56YDKbWlKQE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=ZehIiaNfuDa+B9QCIQTBUe0Az9O0gCpZvLbIvN0M/6TUFtbvuE8PRNqj7Nqf+RYjn w/3Q3GRY0hFhTWwo33E8YkEHRs0Z/N3u5G9i9zuuVfLQyKcsUsmVU+AXFobCmGLuhb Pdtm+xIe3HsSqmOBxGDa5fA9svBnSfLJoOVyyoMasDaBO/HB4NLybHMDVOu080HqlQ zk4c1mIriLXuqVrwh7pMqKYgImqBihQQTCY2LBhJnVunNLi2T/q+8EK00cMiYikjUC a31wFPJUZ1mTSmI2ZUo9q5hBC0wpoypf3bBu2gEjax5UEw5Co3ianPEMY5JfpNVPvy F12jnutlKTD/w== In-Reply-To: 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:250309 Archived-At: > > I can see reasons why some users would consider it not just reasonable > but "The Right Thing" in their specific situation. The argument would > be as simple as "Which part of `bold` don't you understand?" and would > fundamentally be just the same as the argument that we should not use a > monospace font when the "sans-serif" family is specified. > This (a user choosing a font for the default face that has no bold and/or italic variant) is really an exceptional case, in fact it wasn't easy to find one to test that case. So I think the answer "The font you have chosen for the default (or variable-pitch, or...) face has no bold (or italic, or...) variant" is more than satisfactory for such exceptional cases, and I think that adding more complexity to an already rather complex code to handle that exceptional case better is not reasonable. Also, I'm pretty sure that with the better solution you suggest, other users would complain and ask "why is Emacs using so many different fonts?". Again, this is just my opinion. Perhaps the most reasonable thing to do here would be to display warnings in such cases.