From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:12:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4c5631d4-9dfd-04c6-c573-b83c67fcc2fa@yandex.ru> <87pni7p83l.fsf@gmail.com> <87h83ipoi0.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="232588"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 07 00:14:45 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 1iSUVg-000yQD-Em for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:14:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36702 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iSUVf-0007JX-1x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:14:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43251) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iSUTy-0006ZI-5D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:13:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iSUTw-0005sO-8u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:12:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:12321) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iSUTv-0005qi-Cc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:12:55 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 29FE71004C7; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:12:53 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail02.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ACFC51002FC; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:12:47 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1573081967; bh=dGPLqCHwqoNYbSVircHYgs64WNqt0lIseE3mE4zVh2U=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=H9ia+pRdSXXq5i7vBMtsTkfZQ78bm4oPKgOaXxaAGHXYbOn5taAKak2PN1BY3ibfM YN6L/OA48ZbU17dCh2dFmOXaNTbEvQG4kDgx8cvVAm2MwLjVSjRwnTS4pTufJ7wxI5 2T6h7dwImGB1WRH1Hnt+pV22hwe1J4Sk0JLAZ1EjPM007NkNBHfTzd/wcfXN+nRJoI rUve32lxTItYwi36cEuZGDsMyGOUJrRk4Llrk7WUdyQNfrCJShq2eeL6wh2x+hmo0z qxQqpSTJqnknVRLTdK4+YO25iNdpWwYd/ZbX9c1Eotr2l8oOO6nVTj9Fw55FcRYrqD ZfEP1oOpoJ+MQ== Original-Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail02.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91A5312005B; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:12:47 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:16:20 +0000") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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:241889 Archived-At: >> > We can still fall back to subtle blue foreground for common-part. *shrug* >> I'm more and more leaning this way, yes. >> I don't think we'll find an agreement on what is the best default >> setting, so I'll settle for a default setting that everyone can agree is >> "not objectionably worse" than the status quo. > Still pretty bad, tho. Remember it's a step. We can later consider something else. The purpose is to get *some* highlighting without bothering those who don't want any. It's also to advertise the fact that there's a face there that can be customized and it will also get more users to think about "what this face should look like". >> Does anyone object to this change? > Count me as "abstain". Good. Stefan > Can't it be cyan or cyan 3 or something that? Dark blue against black > has terrible contrast. I find `cyan on white` to be barely legible. I could live with `cyan3 on white` but I suspect more people will be annoyed by this change than the change to `blue3`.