From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: new *Help* argument highlighting Date: 10 May 2004 15:06:13 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87llk0qftn.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> References: <20040510013534.F994.LEKTU@mi.madritel.es> <20040510020140.F99A.LEKTU@mi.madritel.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1084216694 1236 80.91.224.253 (10 May 2004 19:18:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon May 10 21:18:00 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BNGHo-0000s1-00 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:18:00 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BNGHj-0000RS-00 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:17:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BNGEf-0001dc-R7 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 15:14:52 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BNG8V-0007S9-Nw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 15:08:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BNG6w-0006rP-A5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 15:07:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.54] (helo=tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BNG6T-0006hD-Km for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 15:06:17 -0400 Original-Received: from alfajor ([67.68.218.161]) by tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040510190616.OLXJ27206.tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor>; Mon, 10 May 2004 15:06:16 -0400 Original-Received: by alfajor (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 294B3D73CE; Mon, 10 May 2004 15:06:13 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: bob@rattlesnake.com In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 41 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:23075 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:23075 > But playing with font size is pretty safe ... > No, it is not. Care to back up your claim with at least some kind of data, so we have a chance of estimating how serious the problem is? As I said, I haven't seen a single complaint about the font-size change in Info-mode in Emacs-21. > Bold sometimes causes problems... > Yes, you are right. But the word `sometimes' is not accurate. Bold > *always* causes a problem when I change font size to 10x20. In a mode I think "sometimes" is perfectly correct. It was clear that I didn't mean for the problem to be non-deterministic, but just to depend on the situation. BTW, I still haven't understood why bold is such a problem for you. Is it that you don't have a bold face and Emacs creates one automatically (and that one is unreadable) or is it that you do have a bold face but it's unreadable? If the latter, is it there a reason why the face is unreadable (other than "the font author just did a bad job")? > line, `m' becomes unreadable. (That font size is best for the display > I mostly use. Everything looks fine in the default font.) With the 6x13 font I use, "m" in bold looks basically like a solid block, but I've never found it to be unreadable because it still looks clearly different from all others (including "w"). Is your situation similar except that the solid block does bother you (maybe because you sight is not as good as mine)? > First, will someone who understands the patch review it? Or should I > commit the merged version of xfaces.c and see whether it breaks others > people's installations? My understanding of the patch is that it introduces risks of crashes. If you set realize-face-filter-functions to functions that are simple enough, it might be safe (tho maybe only if you compile with -DSYNC_INPUT). Stefan