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: Tue, 13 May 2008 02:39:31 +0200 Message-ID: <4828E343.2000909@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> <482774B7.300@gmail.com> <87fxsn5b3z.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 1210639202 4290 80.91.229.12 (13 May 2008 00:40:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 00:40:02 +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 Tue May 13 02:40:38 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 1JviZJ-0002qz-Rb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 May 2008 02:40:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56240 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JviYa-0005ka-Tx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 20:39:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JviYW-0005kL-Fi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 20:39:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JviYU-0005k9-3P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 20:39:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60995 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JviYT-0005k6-U4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 20:39:45 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:50278) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JviYT-0007Gf-Sl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 20:39:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:51647 helo=mx10.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JviXa-0001LU-2E for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 20:38:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JviYP-0007Fv-J3 for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 20:39:45 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]:41646) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JviYP-0007Fj-3Q for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2008 20:39:41 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-150-27.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.150.27]:60319 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JviYN-00048R-7L; Tue, 13 May 2008 02:39:39 +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: <87fxsn5b3z.fsf@jurta.org> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080512-0, 2008-05-12), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.150.27 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JviYN-00048R-7L. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1JviYN-00048R-7L a300afb60a5b670e2f596dd77c1ad7e2 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:97057 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:22288 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. > > One thing that it would be more logical, but another thing > how it would really look in Customize. Does this look good? I avoided that problem ... If the colors is a problem from that point of view then maybe there could be a marker before the text with a color reflection the option type. The name of the object could be just black then.