From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: inactive-mode-line face? Date: 09 Feb 2002 21:07:06 +0100 Message-ID: <5xg04a5sid.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <5xd703e406.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <5137-Tue22Jan2002120220+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <5xwuxn8qiw.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <1659-Sat09Feb2002113708+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1013285734 27857 195.204.10.66 (9 Feb 2002 20:15:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Feb 2002 20:15:34 GMT Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16ZduH-0007FD-00 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 21:15:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16Zdl7-0006J6-00; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 15:06:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16Zdkv-0006Ie-00 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 15:05:54 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 4AB647C035 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 20:05:52 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <1659-Sat09Feb2002113708+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Original-Lines: 33 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:925 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:925 "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > > I just added a new mode-line-inactive face for non-selected windows. > > Did it really compile without any warnings and work for you? Definitely! I compiled and tested it on redhat 6.2 (x86 with X). > I find that I need the additional changes below to make it compile > and work. (I installed these changes.) Thanks Eli. > Well, one problem is that all the windows become inactive when you are > in the minibuffer. That is, as soon as you type "M-x" or "C-x C-f", > all the mode lines become displayed in the inactive face. This might > be regarded as a feature, but perhaps users would like to know what > window is active even when they are typing at the minibuffer prompt. Personally, I like to know that the minibuffer window is active. But I can see that it might be useful to know ... however, it is not different from how Emacs behaves today (where all windows use the same face for the mode line). > Also, I wonder whether the default for this face should really be > different from the mode-line face. Perhaps we want that by default > this feature is invisible; if so, the default face definitions should > just inherit from the mode-line face. I think there should be some visible difference - but I don't know exactly what it should be... the current default isn't optimal. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel