RE: bad default faces now

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > The default faces were changed after Emacs 23.1, and the 
> > result is worse, IMO.
> >
> > I don't care for myself, since I don't use the default 
> > faces, but see the attached screenshot. The faces for
> > the comment, the variable name, and the doc
> > string are all about the same.
> >
> > In GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
> >   of 2009-07-29 on SOFT-MJASON
> > Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
> > configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4)'
>
> I think the new face in 23.1 is very clear, at least better 
> than default face in 22.x. Can you attach the face you use
> for comparison?

I don't understand what you're saying or what you're asking.

The faces in Emacs 23.1 are OK. And as far as I can see they are the same as in
Emacs 22.3.

It is the faces in the pretest I cited that are worse.

I'm not crazy about the default faces in Emacs 22 or 23.1 either. I agree with
the motivation behind the change that was made after 23.1: the doc-string text
is too pale.

All I'm saying is that the current default has faces that are commonly used
together that are too similar: similar in hue, saturation, and brightness.

Both the variable-name face and the doc-string face were apparently moved closer
to the comment face. The variable-name face and the comment face are nearly
indistinguisable now, and all three are very close.

Beyond pointing this out, I really don't care much. If no one else thinks this
is bad, then ignore.