From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: uppercase var names in docstrings Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:44:18 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20041022224418.GC5437@fencepost> References: <002001c4b87a$2b95e060$0200a8c0@sedrcw11488> <20041022222639.GA5437@fencepost> <00a101c4b887$271156c0$0200a8c0@sedrcw11488> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1098485091 22807 80.91.229.6 (22 Oct 2004 22:44:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:44:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan , Drew Adams , Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 23 00:44:42 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CL89K-0004Ka-00 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:44:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CL8Gp-0006CJ-T1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:52:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CL8Gh-0006CC-8b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:52:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CL8Gg-0006C0-Po for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:52:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CL8Gg-0006Bx-Md for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:52:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CL893-0008J7-Ic for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:44:25 -0400 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CL88w-0002G1-4d; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:44:18 -0400 Original-To: Lennart Borgman Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00a101c4b887$271156c0$0200a8c0@sedrcw11488> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop 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: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:28756 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28756 On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:33:12AM +0200, Lennart Borgman wrote: > : > maybe bold italics is less rugged than just italics? > : > : Ha ha, try "much more"... > > They are less rugged, statistically. That is of course what counts. They > just looks more rugged. Huh? Can you give some basis for that statement? The "ruggedness" I assume that's being talked about comes from lots of non-straight lines in the characters, and bold-italic has the same general shape as the italic -- and so the same non-straight lines. However in many bold-italic fonts, instead of just a simple single-pixel (jagged) line, you actually end up with an attempt to represent a thicker line of varying thickness, which ends up looking even worse. -Miles -- (\(\ (^.^) (")") *This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.