From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug in emacsbug.el Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:19:38 +0100 Message-ID: <45761AAA.4000506@student.lu.se> References: <457597D8.9090401@student.lu.se> <87r6vez4l3.fsf@lrde.org> <4575FB91.5090405@student.lu.se> <874ps9zz5r.fsf@lrde.org> <87u00950v7.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <457614B7.7060600@student.lu.se> <87irgp4ysm.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dough.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1165368000 9769 80.91.229.10 (6 Dec 2006 01:20:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 01:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Micha=EBl_Cadilhac?= , Emacs Devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 06 02:19:58 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GrlS1-0002eB-Gd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:19:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrlS0-0004ok-Tm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:19:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GrlRq-0004nr-2h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:19:46 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GrlRn-0004lh-L3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:19:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrlRn-0004le-J7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:19:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.76.149.213] (helo=ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GrlRm-0005Wb-Aq; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:19:42 -0500 Original-Received: from c83-254-145-24.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.145.24]:60351 helo=[192.168.123.121]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GrlRk-0006hF-7w; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:19:40 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: <87irgp4ysm.fsf@catnip.gol.com> X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1GrlRk-0006hF-7w. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1GrlRk-0006hF-7w 87106c57ac043ab1b17c388c1975db81 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:63343 Archived-At: Miles Bader wrote: > Lennart Borgman writes: >> Would not an overlay be better? I guess that would not conflict with >> font-lock-mode? > > Why would an overlay be better? I think conceptually, it's clearly a > text property, and there's an established mechanism for dealing with > this particular case (overlays are also less efficient in general, but > that's proably not an issue in this case). Indeed, it's arguably a > _feature_ that switching to font-lock-face would make the highlighting > respect font-lock mode, especially now that the latter is on by default. > > -Miles Ok, seems like I misread the node "(elisp) Precalculated Fontification". I thought that explicit use of font-lock-face was something that the mode fontification could do.