From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Davis Herring" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:34:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <44495.130.55.118.19.1297179279.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> References: <87oc6vm67v.fsf@stupidchicken.com><87vd12z77n.fsf@stupidchicken.com><87ipx289cu.fsf@nzebook.haselwarter.org> <1A6A06363E5F4274B2A00E2CA8A242D1@us.oracle.com> <1F1C73FF429943C6A882D1E03CC0BD23@us.oracle.com> <49261.130.55.132.54.1297173488.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <5D5B90DE294D40CCAD7F3B1208A112E7@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: herring@lanl.gov NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297179470 4364 80.91.229.12 (8 Feb 2011 15:37:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Tim Cross' , emacs-devel@gnu.org, 'Philipp Haselwarter' To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 08 16:37:45 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PmpdP-0007Pb-7k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:37:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45920 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PmpcE-0002O1-N6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:36:30 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45448 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pmpad-0001gD-SC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:34:53 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PmpaY-0005Kv-E9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:34:47 -0500 Original-Received: from proofpoint2.lanl.gov ([204.121.3.26]:54048) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PmpaY-0005Kk-3Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:34:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (mailrelay1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.101]) by proofpoint2.lanl.gov (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p18H1kIo001526; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:01:46 -0700 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2000C16169D; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:34:40 -0700 (MST) X-NIE-2-Virus-Scanner: amavisd-new at mailrelay1.lanl.gov Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (webmail1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.106]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055E91616A4; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:34:40 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: by webmail1.lanl.gov (Postfix, from userid 48) id 0313B1CA8198; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:34:39 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: from 130.55.118.19 (SquirrelMail authenticated user 196434) by webmail.lanl.gov with HTTP; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:34:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5D5B90DE294D40CCAD7F3B1208A112E7@us.oracle.com> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-5.el5_4.10.lanl3 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-02-08_05:2011-02-08, 2011-02-08, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 204.121.3.26 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:135751 Archived-At: >> Having D copy from B is equivalent to having them both >> inherit from a new face A with B's previous definition. > > It is certainly not equivalent. > Just customize A to see the difference. But A didn't exist before, so that's a new feature, not a difference per se. If we wanted, we could prevent the user from even knowing about A (have `customize-face' not support it), and they would be equivalent. So surely this is better...? >> With the inheritance, the user does have the option >> to change both of them at once if desired. > > Precisely why they are not equivalent. Read the thread, if you have not > already, for why inheritance is not the be-all and end-all. I'm quite surprised that you didn't leap at this idea. Since when is offering the user a choice a bad thing? If they don't want to customize A, they won't, and they'll then have exactly the same set of options that the copying idea would give them. Now, I must say that I've realized an imperfection in my idea: if Emacs defines D but not B (and thus no one bothers to make A), an external package that defines B must either inherit from D or copy-paste its definition. But faces in Emacs that seem worthy of inheritance by anyone may be mechanically transformed into D-A pairs to avoid the problem. >> And we already have inheritance. > > Hammer...nail. David J. Wheeler might disagree. (And you were talking about how it might be non-trivial to implement the copying idea.) Davis -- This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during shipping.