RE: definition lines in Info - 1) link, 2) highlight

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

    >     >     It doesn't need to use new faces.  Surely there is
    >     >     some existing font lock face that would be usable.
    >     >
    >     > Faces are like global variables - user options. You
    >     > wouldn't think of "reusing" some user option that
    >     > happened to have a default value of t or nil or 100
    >     > that you were after, instead of defining a new
    >     > user option that had the same default value - because
    >     > customizing one might not be appropriate for the uses
    >     > of the other. The same is true of faces.
    >
    >     [Rest of lecture deleted]
    >
    >     Uhm, Drew?  There is a slight probability that Richard
    >     has some passing acquaintance with faces.  Instead of
    >     lecturing him, it might be smarter to ask for an
    >     explanation if you don't get his point.
    >
    > Sorry to blaspheme in your eyes, but... Richard is
    > (shudder) human, and is not always right. Please don't
    > assume that disagreeing with Richard means not
    > understanding his point. Likewise, Jesus, Mohammed,
    > Buddha, Marx, Dylan, and the rest.
    >
    > As to *your* technical point in this discussion: =?

    Though David was a tad abrasive in pointing this out, I too
    didn't see the point of your grand-post.

Then I wasn't clear. The points were these:

1) Don't reuse faces for this feature, especially if only because someone
might be in a hurry - wait until after the release, and then do it right.

2) The more important suggestion for this feature is to link to the source
code and display the current value (for a variable) - and that would need to
wait until after the release anyway.

In sum, the point is that implementing this feature after the release makes
sense.

    After all, the whole point of the default font-lock faces
    is to be re-used in many different situations.

Ah, *font-lock* faces. Yes, indeed. They are to be reused in many different
*font-lock* situations. IMO, it is usually *not* appropriate to reuse a
font-lock face for something that is not font-lock-related. Do you disagree?

If I give you a face for the mode-line (or for the gimwort), for instance,
and instead of creating a new face I reuse `font-lock-comment-face', is that
a good idea? Not IMO. Of course, there would be nothing wrong with reuse by
copying the default value of `font-lock-comment-face', but simply pointing
to the existing face is not TRT, IMO.