Re: Bug?

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Shynur Xie <one.last.kiss@outlook.com>,  Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
>>  "emacs-devel@gnu.org" <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>> Date: Sun, 07 May 2023 20:05:33 +0800
>> 
>> Mattias Engdegård <mattiase@acm.org> writes:
>> 
>> > 6 maj 2023 kl. 16.58 skrev Shynur Xie <one.last.kiss@outlook.com>:
>> >
>> >> But did you notice that all the faces defined in
>> >> <lisp/faces.el> use "pre-defined color names" instead of "#RRGGBB"?
>> >> I'm a little worried that if we use "#RRGGBB", it might be not
>> >> intuitive and not fit with the overall style of <lisp/faces.el>.
>> >
>> > I have no opinion on the matter. I suppose `darkskyblue4` is the
>> > closest. Which colour would you prefer?
>> 
>> Please try very hard to avoid using device or intensity specifications
>> for colors.  This is because many vendors of X servers perform color
>> calibration for graphics devices by editing the list of pre-defined X
>> colors.
>> 
>> In addition, using non-predefined colors means that you will be more
>> likely to allocate a color cell in the default colormap which no other
>> program can use.  While not as important as it used to be, excessive
>> color use is still something to keep in mind when writing programs.
>
> Personally, I fail to understand why we are considering changes in
> default faces for this minor issue.  We have enough faces from which
> to inherit, faces whose definitions endured many years of use and
> scrutiny.  Let's not over-engineer, OK?

I thought the discussion was about introducing a new face, this time
with a dangerous color.