From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: reducing defface redundancy
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:37:11 -0600 (MDT)
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <200204222237.g3MMbB402142@aztec.santafe.edu>
References: <877kn3qczq.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>
	<200204212002.g3LK2Y401740@aztec.santafe.edu> <878z7gh90o.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019516711 31353 127.0.0.1 (22 Apr 2002 23:05:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:05:11 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 16zmrv-00089a-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:05:11 +0200
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 16zmsq-0001g6-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:06:08 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 16zmVg-0004L5-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:42:12 -0400
Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 16zmQq-0003A6-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:37:12 -0400
Original-Received: from aztec.santafe.edu (aztec [192.12.12.49])
	by pele.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g3MMbBa27865;
	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:37:11 -0600 (MDT)
Original-Received: (from rms@localhost)
	by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id g3MMbB402142;
	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:37:11 -0600 (MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec using -f
Original-To: miles@gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <878z7gh90o.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> (message from Miles
	Bader on 22 Apr 2002 09:28:07 +0900)
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3058
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3058

    So a user can just write:

	[ALTERNATIVE1 ALTERNATIVE2 ... DEFAULT]

    and the lisp code will effectively say `does the display support all
    the attributes ALTERNATIVE1?  If so, lets use that.  If not, does the
    display support all the attributes in ALTERNATIVE2?  ...' etc.

I see.  This is certainly a convenient thing to do in Lisp terms.
And this, by itself, would not pose a problem for Custom.

What does pose a problem for Custom is the nesting of constructs
that you also propose to add.