From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 02:53:53 +0200 Message-ID: <482643A1.5020309@gmail.com> References: <4822B6FB.9030102@gmail.com> <87iqxn6mq9.fsf@jurta.org> <48261EE2.7030506@gmail.com> <8763tliu0v.fsf@jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1210467259 2551 80.91.229.12 (11 May 2008 00:54:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 00:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 11 02:54:54 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Juzq1-0008Ba-KM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 02:54:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49846 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JuzpJ-0000pJ-6v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 May 2008 20:54:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JuzpF-0000pE-Ar for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 May 2008 20:54:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JuzpD-0000ov-Jh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 May 2008 20:54:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47966 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JuzpD-0000os-Gy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 May 2008 20:54:03 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:52305) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JuzpD-0004uB-0x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 May 2008 20:54:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:39466) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JuzoP-0007qC-47 for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 10 May 2008 20:53:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Juzp9-0004th-Nk for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 10 May 2008 20:54:02 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]:50762) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Juzp9-0004tX-9r for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 10 May 2008 20:53:59 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-150-27.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.150.27]:63439 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Juzp7-0007pJ-8l; Sun, 11 May 2008 02:53:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <8763tliu0v.fsf@jurta.org> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080510-0, 2008-05-10), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.150.27 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Juzp7-0007pJ-8l. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1Juzp7-0007pJ-8l a28e0060be151674b66b661dfcd6b642 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:96955 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:22260 Archived-At: Juri Linkov wrote: >> Juri Linkov wrote: >>>> The heights for custom-variable-tag-face and custom-face-tag differs. >>> Sorry, I see no bug. >> Are those too faces the same height? Any one else seeing different heights? > > If you what to say that different heights look ugly then I argee. Eh, yes. I could perhaps have been clear, but I just could not imagine that the different heights were by intent. > Also using the blue color for custom-variable-tag-face makes option names > similar to links. Maybe we should use the same colors that font-lock > defines for font-lock-constant-face and font-lock-variable-name and just > make them bold? I think that would be worth to try.