From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Zhu, Shenli" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bad default faces now Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:19:04 +0800 Message-ID: <4BA73608.8000003@gmail.com> References: <4BA70C50.5020105@gmail.com> 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: dough.gmane.org 1269249572 16319 80.91.229.12 (22 Mar 2010 09:19:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:19:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 22 10:19:27 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtdnA-0007y8-NQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:19:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34105 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NtdnA-000861-2o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:19:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ntdn2-000858-6s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:19:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35213 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ntdmz-00083m-NS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:19:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ntdmy-0003XP-SV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172]:62871) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ntdmy-0003XK-Pr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:19:12 -0400 Original-Received: by yxe2 with SMTP id 2so3294246yxe.14 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:19:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YGYaIP8BEsVV1ga7tQUnL/XMEsLC6wZuzkXKCkZLKhM=; b=lqHlJZdU3nj2vgaPFHT8f50B3wWoVesdW0V/hmwD2gjFwU42gMOFcmN235334USEcY bnB2KP/wwfk78CIuZTRzmNH9+dGLAYJicU7jK3Fz4n6zVl5XJOHrR8kXiEE7RweYjGVm IyeRi8cnYmrYnfGsjPo9T7grOLaW9TfUiBTZ8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wj+DLtjgUcwj9z/4NWFV3q3vwJMn0VGwKZD1/sNn6o6p7LotOxaTVuE8YN1kkAuk2I SeRFHlXoMCbu0PPWIgjCiBP1On7xCNZ2qXGt3fvsB/Ci/d0tDKXGj2UeXoJm47cigfiL pirO5G1pqObxi3iG4x74u+wZ6ZYiDWbFZkrcY= Original-Received: by 10.101.174.17 with SMTP id b17mr3587372anp.242.1269249552192; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [116.233.19.1] ([116.233.19.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 9sm1621254ywe.7.2010.03.22.02.19.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:122460 Archived-At: On 03/22/2010 03:35 PM, Drew Adams wrote: >>> The default faces were changed after Emacs 23.1, and the >>> result is worse, IMO. >>> >>> I don't care for myself, since I don't use the default >>> faces, but see the attached screenshot. The faces for >>> the comment, the variable name, and the doc >>> string are all about the same. >>> >>> In GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) >>> of 2009-07-29 on SOFT-MJASON >>> Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 >>> configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4)' >>> >> I think the new face in 23.1 is very clear, at least better >> than default face in 22.x. Can you attach the face you use >> for comparison? >> > I don't understand what you're saying or what you're asking. > Me too, and sorry for my poor English :) > The faces in Emacs 23.1 are OK. And as far as I can see they are the same as in > Emacs 22.3. > > It is the faces in the pretest I cited that are worse. > > I'm not crazy about the default faces in Emacs 22 or 23.1 either. I agree with > the motivation behind the change that was made after 23.1: the doc-string text > is too pale. > > All I'm saying is that the current default has faces that are commonly used > together that are too similar: similar in hue, saturation, and brightness. > What I mean is maybe you have a better face set? > Both the variable-name face and the doc-string face were apparently moved closer > to the comment face. The variable-name face and the comment face are nearly > indistinguisable now, and all three are very close. > > Beyond pointing this out, I really don't care much. If no one else thinks this > is bad, then ignore. > >