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: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:25:52 -0500 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> <834kzeb1cc.fsf@gnu.org> <83sgmxa6dh.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="244859"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 09 16:26:37 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 1iTSdI-0011aV-Tz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:26:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37252 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iTSdH-0004EL-Nn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:26:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46605) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iTSco-0004E4-0X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:26:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iTScm-0007lF-A6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:26:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:16180) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iTSck-0007jG-GN; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:26:02 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4A871811C0; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 10:26:00 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A74FC80C84; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 10:25:58 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1573313158; bh=nyZLf05Jp9oOlIdjtLsqn4wl5cJ28vOj5u14KURM7Oo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=imFSTP0eoVfBzbwtdKgqwLQ6WLPPDt25PF+plqmPj2Sw6/oLnflG4a63XWTeBx/lD 2HjkU8s06g9wdh8QvnT1jRlzZlWA+NjavY3izVGF/T1ehGlcQIk9RwXzqpQUxnT3Kl dv44/NPzpFuFGKx7T11Z7CSpUdmciR0l94lSOYy2PtyeREQYl77x53MFCmbHoBr6u4 LNp4s/kABuB0UJ/YjeFLTpOR2NrVQvkdbutBkH65eqV8mV9is+CQNUuKJZjCnmmnAB NSBNMBl5rPe9JepbzU+YTUbOPn7hlvWzgo1e8n6KdghFHCVtOzMbGrIQdjSHQxCedo a1SBQR47b/dXA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [216.154.47.134]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55A5312066A; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 10:25:58 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83sgmxa6dh.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 09 Nov 2019 08:52:42 +0200") 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:242043 Archived-At: > Hm... so the "common part" will be highlighted as blueish and the > "first difference" will stay just bold? Yes. > Does that look good? I'll pass judgment on aesthetics. It doesn't make the "first-difference" less legible IMO, and it does make the "common-part" easier to find, which are my main criteria, so it does look good in this sense. I'm not trying to find a perfect solution, just an incremental improvement. > IOW, will the bold character be seen right next to a blue one? Yes. > Maybe we should also change the default definition of the > first-difference face? I'd rather postpone this decision to later. > I'd actually expect this face to use the background, because that's > how other applications behave, and I thought this change was motivated > by that? While highlighting the "common-part" is definitely standard, there's definitely not a standard *way* to highlight it. While a background color is used in some cases I have the vague impression that it might be a minority rather than a majority of cases. > Also, what will this do to the output of the more aggressive > completion styles? For flex's "foo matched to frobot" it highlights the "f" the "o"s in blue3 and the "t" in bold. >> we'd also want to find a color for the dark background case, > Right. But I'd also rather postpone this decision to later. Stefan