From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: TTY Vertical divider face? Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:02:24 -0400 Message-ID: References: <878y1nobtb.fsf@jurta.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1118232689 12255 80.91.229.2 (8 Jun 2005 12:11:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:11:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, len@reeltwo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 08 14:11:27 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DfzNW-0006B1-Ax for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:09:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DfzUE-0005HC-EP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:16:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DfzPL-0002m5-Ri for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:11:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DfzPL-0002lg-7h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:11:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DfzP3-0002Sx-7m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:11:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DfzLa-0003w0-7P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:07:50 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DfzGK-0006we-4a; Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:02:24 -0400 Original-To: snogglethorpe@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Miles Bader on Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:12:08 +0900) 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:38316 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:38316 to the following patch? Should it use a different face (note that the actual face that ends up being used by this code is `mode-line-inactive', even though the code says MODE_LINE_FACE_ID; I'm not sure why this is)? Defaulting to mode-line-inactive seems better than defaulting mode-line, but if it is implemented this way, there should be a comment to explain that this code doesn't do what you might have expected it to do. However, on principle it seems wrong to use mode-line-inactive directly. There ought to be a separate named face to control this. It could default to mode-line-inactive.