From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: mode-line-inactive and face inheritance Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:08:27 -0500 Message-ID: <200202182208.g1IM8RH11692@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <9003-Sat16Feb2002095527+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <200202181524.g1IFOe210109@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xk7tafubo.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014070969 13331 195.204.10.66 (18 Feb 2002 22:22:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Feb 2002 22:22:49 GMT Cc: "Stefan Monnier" , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16cwBN-0003Sv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:22:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16cvyA-0007To-00; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:09:10 -0500 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16cvxd-0007Rj-00 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:08:37 -0500 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1IM8RH11692; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:08:27 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1300 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1300 > Looking at the two rewritten face specs doesn't persuade me this > is desireable in general (the partial structuring doesn't really > make things clearer to me). I agree that the structuring tends to be a bit difficult to read. > But for the :inherit tag, I can see it could be useful. That's the main kind of use I had in mind: I hate duplication so I wanted to reduce duplication between the different arms of a face spec. > What happens if the `all' spec contains a tag which is also in the > specific section? E.g. if all gives one foreground and the specific > section another -- which one wins? (I would say the specific > section). Of course, the specific section should win, although I haven't actually checked whether that's indeed what happens. Stefan _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel