From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:44:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <87pni7p83l.fsf@gmail.com> <87h83ipoi0.fsf@gmail.com> <93235eb5-8e04-7182-e2a4-49fbe610ee2b@yandex.ru> <28d4ae09-daca-324b-2fa6-9d7138d710fa@yandex.ru> <87zhh82d8c.fsf@gmail.com> <1e1aa5a7-a35b-2ef5-6caf-10e02dd0c6ea@yandex.ru> <3cfbe69a-c274-f4f2-f3f5-9eb4c8500bb8@yandex.ru> <83lfspa4ma.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="17136"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Eli Zaretskii , =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 09 17:44:34 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iTTqk-0004Lf-25 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 17:44:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37708 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iTTqi-0001Yr-Al for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:44:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54037) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iTTqc-0001Yk-9q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:44:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iTTqa-0002g1-QB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:44:25 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:44310) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iTTqZ-0002bw-34; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:44:23 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xA9GNpUe135044; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:44:10 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2019-08-05; bh=xz4G9PjTRkZNJf+0f3HOGh0yZMZrvUkr618MJ7IDoNE=; b=N2+L1SZuHDBSbv3odeMp1zAWak0Uz77GH5sHc3++v+KAF8aDxb18hcFNBzDHmKf4IhEN qdEb0KYCNzD1eRPoG6DbMrtMOYcihtm1xznzrpPtR/9bx0NLSAqeOy1M2B35yu005w8g u5JAHsHYpEJHqD9C7pTJWO+qxM7dCLEr6MBFj02I5TPhdXx2r+K8Sqy0d20FqGcvzb5c qllzVsPE9RFbZFS0s17coRa/IZ9ljrdF4r7EZ9hoIPYvrLxgfI851mB+iyADfyR+a29r LuWL12laQYDWCMCVolO72M6pYA7b7YiQcrlXuyqwicmUyPvWVMGylcigdSNPfN8NImh5 9A== Original-Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2w5mvt9k4n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:44:10 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xA9GO9I2030130; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:44:10 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2w5mt3x64g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:44:10 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xA9Gi8D0000445; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:44:08 GMT In-Reply-To: <83lfspa4ma.fsf@gnu.org> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4900.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9435 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=18 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911090170 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9435 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=18 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911090170 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.86 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:242048 Archived-At: > But the important part is to recognize these > special needs as such. It's your and > Drew's insistence on making that the default ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > is what at least I object to, and I think > so does Dmitry. =20 Huh? I know I'm the bogeyman for you, Eli (or one of them), but I've said _nothing_ about any defaults here. In fact, I made it clear that this whole question, about vanilla faces etc. for completions doesn't affect my use at all. _Not my problem._ The only effect of any of this discussion on what I do, AFAICT, might be that I'll have to modify Icicles a bit to ignore different face-fiddling from vanilla Emacs, in order to continue doing what Icicles has been doing. My contribution to this and the companion thread has been _only_ to speak to what Icicles does (and has long done), as a point of comparison/reference, and perhaps as food for thought wrt completion behavior. You want to draw battle lines, but I'm not in this battle - sorry. Let me be very clear: not my problem. Do whatever you guys want wrt vanilla Emacs highlighting completion (non-)matches. Doesn't affect me. Do I care at all? Sure - I care about vanilla Emacs - a lot. But what you decide here is unlikely to affect my use or that of anyone who might use my code. At least I think (and hope) it's unlikely. And I take no part in the current arguments. Back off, please. Not interested in being one of your punching bags.