From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: re-builder highlighting incorrect for more than 3 groupings Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:17:09 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87r73ljvfa.fsf@myusenet.dyndns.org> <44532003.1000709@gmx.at> <85zmi0ssml.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85r73csr59.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146565046 894 80.91.229.2 (2 May 2006 10:17:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 10:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 02 12:17:25 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 1FarwZ-0006Lr-Dk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 12:17:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FarwY-0008SU-TU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 06:17:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FarwO-0008PP-6M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 06:17:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FarwM-0008M1-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 06:17:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FarwM-0008Lr-K7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 06:17:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [66.249.92.172] (helo=uproxy.gmail.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FarwU-0007AS-Np for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 06:17:18 -0400 Original-Received: by uproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m2so2033289ugc for ; Tue, 02 May 2006 03:17:09 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CMmveAwwXaa3AcRVt1Cyvzv3PwEksvGtGGIAEP9YxB2X93R811KOJlrVdvLLBAYRrr6Kj/X+bgfo8DfyOsaCY8Tvz3gsaka2orH6OvtELX8Ayw3c9vGSvSkau8M0/aBBpgCUvlsYNXid4FhbjToMCLNiBDTxiNaJqHioVBkuZDY= Original-Received: by 10.78.43.1 with SMTP id q1mr451006huq; Tue, 02 May 2006 03:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.78.33.18 with HTTP; Tue, 2 May 2006 03:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Original-To: "David Kastrup" In-Reply-To: <85r73csr59.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Content-Disposition: inline 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:53778 Archived-At: On 5/2/06, David Kastrup wrote: > The cycling patch was not reducing the number of distinct colors: > there never was a proposal to add more _distinct_ colors to the > standard scheme. > > That's what "no apparent good whatsoever" is about: just defining more > faces in a cyclic fashion does not change the appearance in any way. And do you honestly think I was proposing to add more faces and not make them distinct from the ones already existing? > If the colors are the same anyway, there is no point in > attaining that effect in a more verbose manner. Sure. But to my eyes, it seems like you're fighting a strawman. > So what? You have not given _any_ kind of rationale where this third > condition would in any way be affected. No. And I've not claimed to. I was just wondering. And from my wording I think that was quite clear. Perhaps just not to you. I think that tends to happen a lot every time you and I discuss something. Must be some kind of failure to communicate on my part. > Users can define more colors > if they really want to. Thanks for pointing that out, I would've never thought of it. -- /L/e/k/t/u