the new makefile faces

the new makefile faces

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Hi!

Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying? 

It is unnecessarily distracting with that "seashell1" background.

IMHO it does not bring any useful visual information. In a Makefile
lines that start with an whitespace are either commands (and now
they are highlighted with the makefile-shell-face), or mistakes
(i.e. lines that don't start with a tab) and makefile-space-face is
great at showing those.

IMHO the makefile-targets-face is also annoying. The fact that it
using underlines is not great. IMHO the old setting was much better. 

Do we really need new faces introduced at this point in the release
process?

Again this is all IMHO, but I have a feeling that I might not be the
only one that thinks like this. I apologize in advance if that turns
out not to be the case.

Thanks
                --dan

Re: the new makefile faces

[David Kastrup]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:

> Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying?
>
> It is unnecessarily distracting with that "seashell1" background.

Oh good grief.  Seems like a blind person's idea of a pun.

> Do we really need new faces introduced at this point in the release
> process?

Only if accompanied by new patterns that render the mode completely
unusable for more than 3-line Makefiles.

> Again this is all IMHO, but I have a feeling that I might not be the
> only one that thinks like this. I apologize in advance if that turns
> out not to be the case.

You apologize for your opinion in case others don't share it?  What is
this?  Good Borg of the month contest?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: the new makefile faces

[Glenn Morris]

Dan Nicolaescu wrote:

> Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying? 

Emphatically not. I usually love electric fruit salad, but this is
awful.

> Do we really need new faces introduced at this point in the release
> process?

The answer can only be "no".

This "feature freeze" is so liquid as to be effectively non-existent.

Re: the new makefile faces

[Sean O'Rourke]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
> Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying? 

No.  I found them a horrid surprise when opening a makefile the other
day.  My current Emacs has that set of changes, plus the dubious
font-lock-negation-char-face, completely removed.  My question (which
someone else has raised as well) is whether anyone but the author
actually likes these changes.

/s

Re: the new makefile faces

[Romain Francoise]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:

> Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying? 

I am too...

> It is unnecessarily distracting with that "seashell1" background.

Especially on ttys, where it's actually almost white.  Text is now
displayed as (almost) white on white!

> IMHO the makefile-targets-face is also annoying. The fact that it
> using underlines is not great. IMHO the old setting was much better. 

I agree.

> Do we really need new faces introduced at this point in the release
> process?

I don't think so either.  Please revert these changes.

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | Last night the whole of hell
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | came down to bathe and dine
                                        | with us.

the new makefile faces

[Joshua Varner]

On 5/18/05, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
>
> > Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying?
> >
I second this - i immediately customized them back to the old ones.

> Only if accompanied by new patterns that render the mode completely
> unusable for more than 3-line Makefiles.
>
I tried to reproduce the bug that was the problem, but couldn't on my
2 week old checkout, but by the time i updated and bootsrapped these
changes were already in.

I don't think it was a problem with the regex since it started "
*\\([^\n\t] ..." so the offending line should have never matched in
the first place since it started with a tab. Could the magic
whitespace in regexps caused the problem by allowing the initial " "
to match a tab?

Josh

Re: the new makefile faces

[Richard Stallman]

      My question (which
    someone else has raised as well) is whether anyone but the author
    actually likes these changes.

I am also interested in the answer to that question.

Re: the new makefile faces

[Lute Kamstra]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:

> Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying? 

It's more than annoying on a 8-color console: it sets the background
color to white, while the foreground color of most of the text is
white as well.

Lute.

Re: the new makefile faces

[Sascha Wilde]

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 08:00:29PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
> Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
> 
> > Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying? 
> 
> I am too...

Me too... :)
 
> > It is unnecessarily distracting with that "seashell1" background.
> 
> Especially on ttys, where it's actually almost white.  Text is now
> displayed as (almost) white on white!

At least here it's not only almost but indeed white on white.

And, the fontification with `makefile-shell-face' is buggy:
with:

target: foo.o \
        bar.o
        shell stuff

`bar.o' gets fontified as part of the shell code, which it isn't.

cheers
sascha
-- 
Sascha Wilde : The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one
             : that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found
             : it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Re: the new makefile faces

[Kim F. Storm]

Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes:

> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 08:00:29PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
>> Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
>> 
>> > Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying? 
>> 
>> I am too...
>
> Me too... :)

I'm not sure what I think about the feature as such, but the timing of
the change is really bad -- especially since the feature obviously
isn't fully developed and tested, and getting everything right seems
to be tedious.

So I would strongly suggest that the make-mode changes are reverted
for now, so we can focus on the release.  Please!

I'm not sure if there are part of the make-file changes that actually
fixed any bugs -- if so, those parts of the change could be installed
(if they can be separated).

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: the new makefile faces

[Denis Bueno]

On 5/19/05, Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> wrote:
> Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 08:00:29PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
> >> Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> > Am I the only one that finds the new makefile-shell-face annoying?
> >>
> >> I am too...
> >
> > Me too... :)

I don't mind the faces much. The problem is that the font-locking
renders the mode *unusable* on any reasonable machine. I wrote an
8-line makefile, and as I was writing the 8th line, emacs hung for 5
or 10 minutes before I was able to type again. And when I did, it hung
again.

-Denis

Re: the new makefile faces

[Romain Francoise]

Also, the fact that it now sets the mode name to "GNUmakefile",
"BSDmakefile" or "Makeppfile" isn't terribly useful either...

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | The world is a fine place,
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | and worth fighting for.
                                        | --Ernest Hemingway

Re: the new makefile faces

[Richard Stallman]

I sent Daniel mail to start discussing these changes with him.
After having the discussion I will decide what to do.

Re: the new makefile faces

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I sent Daniel mail to start discussing these changes with him.
> After having the discussion I will decide what to do.

He does not read the list?  In spite of doing major surgery on an
important mode, while Emacs is in feature freeze?

The recent ChangeLog entries suggest that he is not even aware about
the extensive complaints about font lock colors.

I think that everyone with CVS write access should be reading the
developer list, and everyone who is doing non-trivial checkins should
also read the pretest bug list.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: the new makefile faces

[Romain Francoise]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I sent Daniel mail to start discussing these changes with him.
> After having the discussion I will decide what to do.

It has now been more than a week.  What was the outcome of this
discussion?

Thanks,

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | You know that old saying,
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | that you always hurt the ones
                                        | you love? Well it works both
                                        | ways.

Re: the new makefile faces

[Miles Bader]

On 5/29/05, Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> wrote:
> > I sent Daniel mail to start discussing these changes with him.
> > After having the discussion I will decide what to do.
> 
> It has now been more than a week.  What was the outcome of this
> discussion?

Also, if new faces are going to be added, please don't use a "-face"
suffix on them.

Thanks,

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: the new makefile faces

[Juanma Barranquero]

I'd like to add my voice to the choir: the new settings for the
makefile faces are not nice, font-lock-negation-face seems like a
waste, and adding new faces and changing old ones now, with no
consensus whatsoever, seems like very bad timing.

Please revert it!

                          /L/e/k/t/u