From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jostein_Kj=c3=b8nigsen?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bat-mode: Inconsistent fontification. Consider using font-lock-function-name-face Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:29:58 +0200 Message-ID: <3668c95a-d8a0-1e31-c663-297ac684a8f1@secure.kjonigsen.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------63CF937BC7611B78079AC988" Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="183233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.0 Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 10 06:31:33 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i7XoP-000lTR-IF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:31:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33876 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7XoN-0003vQ-HX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:31:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48901) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7Xn4-0003vH-01 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:30:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i7Xn2-00070g-QS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:30:05 -0400 Original-Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.21]:49103) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i7Xn2-0006ze-53 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:30:04 -0400 Original-Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428E1618; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:30:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= secure.kjonigsen.net; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; s=fm1; bh=PtY02M3y4 Udh64VfQ6bWhxYIvHGtV+TPBT2xiSj82w4=; b=Z2cQcSHg9dwy449hrojlKWpxi +YEzZYPtmjmZ3y54job0nSj//uFZ+26V0GhMecnoV46cM4PAZXs4UsjNn/xLgr6d 45O5by1dQMum1ZXkp/uG/uc37q/A/uKa3jFzN+IkYxtR97BLzasi7i21u1d11dxd JiOco/+9SeZlSY6e/a23PbbrwSN3wM2lcH0skN+no99JVUNA3fhPyu0VK+LME1kq 2+9/98QeH3k8O2dG29WmAZ8ZwP3H9CqC6J4IEWEz37CJyq+yfD/Ii2wAQ3gXKZgZ jdiJ9aZ9DGk3SWBWXfpsLTL3tYQbCOWCI+rjbLzNB5pcCFdR0b7FQWdCqVXLA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=PtY02M 3y4Udh64VfQ6bWhxYIvHGtV+TPBT2xiSj82w4=; b=jcYlQMEcZNPmpRpUWcuBDU iZXX1ekqnwmoDL0g4UuoHXAdhJO35wRsqV0aWT53agWwiyRq9XLbCSdGBDAgaybv lsfCZAHkvaDVRK10Lu5pkwIl9rHwamWafcwREl3dXCcOPuw6O7biZs5+aEMA9pRK Dz/RBUnsT0JVMdtZl226FJlIghl1ApY9aqoW1tSAto0pp6/W7+dx0pgwROBQTpbP egoVgBIaYKGjNUqxr4PpPPjCK4C4jttt8FypYcuGEwcFmh6DXjevImMWMhOyE+8b qdrPsiTz7a+9zqs+kmUrg7fnDUY7mQB6cr5CWt5tkrC9+SPB/rmH6tpjWXQ/1nuA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudekjedgkedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderredtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeflohhsthgv ihhnpgfmjhppnhhighhsvghnuceojhhoshhtvghinhesshgvtghurhgvrdhkjhhonhhigh hsvghnrdhnvghtqeenucffohhmrghinhepnhhighhsvghnrdhnohenucfkphepkeegrddv uddurdefvddruddvkeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhhoshhtvghinhessh gvtghurhgvrdhkjhhonhhighhsvghnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Original-Received: from [192.168.1.110] (cm-84.211.32.128.getinternet.no [84.211.32.128]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8330DD60057; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:30:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 64.147.123.21 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:239973 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------63CF937BC7611B78079AC988 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 9/9/19 11:41 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > FWIW, most modes distinguish function-definitions from > function-references (aka function-calls), and I think that's a good > thing (I like my definition to be highlighted in bold, but I like my > function calls not to be highlighted at all). > > > Stefan > Working mostly with OOP-related languages where functions can be contained in both types -and- variables, I find the opposite is true for me. Either way, isn't that a good argument to create dedicated font-lock faces for those different uses, so that people with different preferences can customize Emacs to their preferences? For instance font-lock-function-name-face and font-lock-function-call-face ? Again, are there any objectively negative or adverse side-effects of adding more default-faces which authors can use and users can customize? -- Vennlig hilsen *Jostein Kjønigsen* jostein@kjonigsen.net 🍵 jostein@gmail.com https://jostein.kjønigsen.no --------------63CF937BC7611B78079AC988 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 9/9/19 11:41 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

FWIW, most modes distinguish function-definitions from
function-references (aka function-calls), and I think that's a good
thing (I like my definition to be highlighted in bold, but I like my
function calls not to be highlighted at all).


        Stefan

Working mostly with OOP-related languages where functions can be contained in both types -and- variables, I find the opposite is true for me.

Either way, isn't that a good argument to create dedicated font-lock faces for those different uses, so that people with different preferences can customize Emacs to their preferences?

For instance font-lock-function-name-face and font-lock-function-call-face ?

Again, are there any objectively negative or adverse side-effects of adding more default-faces which authors can use and users can customize?

--
Vennlig hilsen
Jostein Kjønigsen

jostein@kjonigsen.net 🍵 jostein@gmail.com
https://jostein.kjønigsen.no
--------------63CF937BC7611B78079AC988--