From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: [drew.adams@oracle.com: customizing hl-line-face should reset global-hl-line-overlay to nil] Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:03:55 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87u03wbx6e.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1156788261 17833 80.91.229.2 (28 Aug 2006 18:04:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 28 20:04:19 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHlT2-0006m4-V8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:04:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHlT2-0006Vu-Id for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:04:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GHlSq-0006VW-Sr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:04:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GHlSp-0006US-2U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:04:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHlSo-0006UI-Uj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:03:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [141.146.126.228] (helo=agminet01.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.52) id 1GHlbo-0006fk-Oc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:13:16 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmgw3.us.oracle.com (rgmgw3.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.112]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k7SI3uFv025211 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:03:57 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dradams-lap.us.oracle.com [130.35.177.126]) by rgmgw3.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with SMTP id k7SI3t12002625 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:03:56 -0600 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <87u03wbx6e.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE 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:59016 Archived-At: > > However, please see my other email about using a face instead > > of a user option (variable). Wouldn't that also take > > care of this problem? That is, if there is no face variable, > > and users change the face itself, then that would be > > immediately reflected in the overlay, no? > > It would. But it would break other people's > customizations as well. > > Do you really think that would affect a lot of people > negatively? I don't. I think that most users of hl-line > (both of them ;-)) will appreciate having a face to customize. I suspect the users who care about "having a face to customize" forms is an even smaller subset than those that will get annoyed by having their existing customizations break. Note that hl-line-mode has been in Emacs since 1999. I think Martin's patch is correct. I disagree, obviously. The users who might have customized that variable did so precisely because the face that was its default value was inappropriate for them. Some might even have created a new face to use, because no existing face was appropriate. They are quite likely to be users who do care about having a face to customize. This was a poor design from the beginning, and it should be corrected, giving users a better way to customize the feature, even at the minor cost of making them change their existing, workaround customizations. But if others agree with you that this is a big problem, then the face should be added but the variable still left in place, with its default value changed to the new face, instead of `highlight'. That (including Martin's correction) makes the code much more complex than is necessary; I hope others do not agree with you about this.