From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Regarding adding additional default font-lock faces Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:53:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1533151464.4048871.1460317672.1FF86CD1@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1533193402.1422491.1460826912.040BAF55@webmail.messagingengine.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1533210674 16491 195.159.176.226 (2 Aug 2018 11:51:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:51:14 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: jostein@kjonigsen.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jostein =?windows-1252?Q?Kj=F8nigsen?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 02 13:51:09 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1flC8L-0004Bf-RF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:51:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45135 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1flCAQ-0002I1-SE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48784) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1flCAK-0002He-FL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:53:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1flCAF-0007U2-JW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:53:12 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:52374) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1flCAF-0007TY-CS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:53:07 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w72Br5rt013159; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:53:06 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 996F1614EB; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:53:05 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1533193402.1422491.1460826912.040BAF55@webmail.messagingengine.com> ("Jostein =?windows-1252?Q?Kj=F8nigsen=22's?= message of "Thu, 02 Aug 2018 09:03:22 +0200") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6343=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6343> : inlines <6793> : streams <1794328> : uri <2682911> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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:228106 Archived-At: > Which is fine. But can't we have a defface for this whose default > value is nil? > That way major-modes have one standard variable to use, and users have > one standard variable to customize. I think that's a whole lot easier > for everyone. > Not to mention this puts the user in control of their own experience, > like Emacs should. Of course. I think the current design is strongly influenced by efficiency considerations rather than by someone deciding that those constructs shouldn't have their specific highlighting. >>> * attributes/annotations for functions, classes, >> I don't know what this refers to. Which languages have those? > To be clear I meant annotations/attributes *applied to* function- > parameters, not function parameters itself. > In C# it can look like this: > >> [DataContract] >> public class QueryInfo >> { >> [DataMember(Order = 0)] >> public int ContactId { get; set; } >> >> [DataMember(Order = 1)] >> public int PersonId { get; set; } >> >> [DataMember(Order = 2)] >> public int ProjectId { get; set; } >> >> [DataMember(Order = 3)] >> public int SaleId { get; set; } >> } Ah, right, thanks. I never use languages where this is used, but now that I see it, I do remember having heard of it. Stefan