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: Mon, 12 May 2008 00:35:35 +0200 Message-ID: <482774B7.300@gmail.com> References: <4822B6FB.9030102@gmail.com> <87iqxn6mq9.fsf@jurta.org> <48261EE2.7030506@gmail.com> <8763tliu0v.fsf@jurta.org> <482643A1.5020309@gmail.com> <87tzh4psg5.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 1210545362 24964 80.91.229.12 (11 May 2008 22:36:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:36:02 +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 Mon May 12 00:36:38 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 1JvK9m-0003A5-DU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 00:36:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42613 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JvK93-0003O8-OV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 18:35:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JvK90-0003Nn-Bn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 18:35:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JvK8x-0003NM-W6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 18:35:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47870 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JvK8x-0003NJ-OU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 18:35:47 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:37545) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JvK8x-0005sX-M8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 18:35:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:50211) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JvK86-0001vG-Vu for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 18:34:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JvK8t-0005ry-Ee for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 18:35:47 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]:60354) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JvK8s-0005rr-VB for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2008 18:35:43 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-150-27.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.150.27]:62061 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JvK8r-00006C-4b; Mon, 12 May 2008 00:35:41 +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: <87tzh4psg5.fsf@jurta.org> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080511-0, 2008-05-11), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.150.27 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JvK8r-00006C-4b. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1JvK8r-00006C-4b 1e6ec893ea17123f2dee7a70ba429bd5 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:96987 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:22271 Archived-At: Juri Linkov wrote: >>> 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. > > Could you propose a better color? I think your proposal to reuse the font-lock colors is good. `font-lock-variable-name' seems appropriate to inherit in `custom-variable-tag-face' - at least as a mnemonic (and that is probably good for a quick overview). Not sure about what `custom-face-tag' could inherit from, but font-lock-constant-face is not bad IMO. > Meanwhile, I like to fix the original problem you reported > by the following patch. It changes the appearance of Thanks.