From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: mode-line-inactive and face inheritance Date: 18 Feb 2002 20:44:59 +0100 Message-ID: <5xk7tafubo.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <9003-Sat16Feb2002095527+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <200202181524.g1IFOe210109@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014062349 5799 195.204.10.66 (18 Feb 2002 19:59:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Feb 2002 19:59:09 GMT Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16ctwK-0001VR-00 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:59:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16ctiu-00057t-00; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:45:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16cthY-00051l-00 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:43:52 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 4446C7C035; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:43:50 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: "Stefan Monnier" In-Reply-To: <200202181524.g1IFOe210109@rum.cs.yale.edu> Original-Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1293 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1293 "Stefan Monnier" writes: > Reminds me that I have a minor hack in faces.el that allows > slightly more structured specs for faces, so that you can move the > `:inherit mode-line' outside of any display-specific thing. I don't quite understand -- the rewritten initialization of the mode-line-inactive face still has multiple :inherit tags. > It needs to be cleaned up and documented before it's ready for > commit, but I'm not even sure if there's any interest in such > a feature. Looing at the two rewritten face specs doesn't persuade me this is desireable in general (the partial structuring doesn't really make things clearer to me). But for the :inherit tag, I can see it could be useful. What happens if the `all' spec contains a tag which is also in the specific section? E.g. if all gives one foreground and the specific section another -- which one wins? (I would say the specific section). -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel