From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jostein_Kj=C3=B8nigsen?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_bat-mode:_Inconsistent_fontification._Consider_using_font-?= =?UTF-8?Q?lock-function-name-face?= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:56:08 +0200 Message-ID: <72cef0cb-d24b-4510-b73d-eced05d40bc0@www.fastmail.com> References: <3668c95a-d8a0-1e31-c663-297ac684a8f1@secure.kjonigsen.net> <8336h42ocy.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: jostein@kjonigsen.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=4c1ad5278c7d4659a28a2c6956b78d76 Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="140325"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-189-g37dc846-fmstable-20190910v1 Cc: Stefan Monnier , "Ergus via Emacs development discussions." To: "Eli Zaretskii" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 10 18:57:26 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i7jSG-000aKX-D9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:57:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43454 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7jSF-0002iL-8Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:57:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59275) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7jRT-0002et-NR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:56:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i7jRS-000308-Ls for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:56:35 -0400 Original-Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]:54171) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i7jRQ-0002yr-IF; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:56:32 -0400 Original-Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF32870D; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from imap1 ([10.202.2.51]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:56:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= secure.kjonigsen.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:content-type; s= fm1; bh=rpDaNtLduqZuWwszwgjlzo79Klikb/m6oblSDgtWi3Y=; b=BlKRnbWr 7UWGTggSJb3wF74etT5IiZi2/6KZSYTbdxVTfG2/sTWTf2UnVJsrNXlHeaf/h6MW O2klZo4ODDEH14GBz32oBxtFrpUUHkqH2Tqh05uJJk0KfPBkSXbKgq4usq0IIRO3 G/gY5edXXoANmpRLrkX4YDci0QaoI3J3l6Rx0tQMvLHX81Vsj1OBxNb02rDmgfVU wWCjkb+X32kUHBl8bEdMf8DxD9QLkPEtlQAQzwW7Mkonx5cCbZ2Fk+gt5pq/wKou RN2XQ9+fcul58IM5520JIQiml99P3FMWuo/hnBG5SXysCJTe4gPhMqCjMcoBrr+J pyUDtxXJZM3zLQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; bh=rpDaNtLduqZuWwszwgjlzo79Klikb/m6oblSDgtWi3Y=; b=AplhYwFn UGO4lvDKyCxKWcvW5GJANQPF3egxgAAbGLa+AbjImas7egNQdMoF0m+VFeGpruni 7lKKjv6DTprQV/IYPCc9M5fyy1y5vI1Gcs1VocdzuL2xTuE5Hii1Afp7K1OhssJE gMx4j0vpyuIFu3Hi2SoT6MnbcZe4tcQG5zQE2R/Q8h2OPFcSm2WTvbnF/W/+yKG/ QTn46WH8NY3oUZqF0VzSD2Adddaf2gmzHzI+vMMIbS+kT/Tgli3vk0fy7mYKxx01 L7XnvnR59rhzMow+KemJc3oADwoe90DkEclG8MYqcURp36mPfZxVVAV0H9DmdDm1 yuGDpENkd+mMug== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrtddtgdekgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhfhrvffutgesrgdtreerreerjeenucfhrhhomheplfhoshht vghinhgpmfhjpphnihhgshgvnhcuoehjohhsthgvihhnsehsvggtuhhrvgdrkhhjohhnih hgshgvnhdrnhgvtheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehjohhsthgvihhnsehs vggtuhhrvgdrkhhjohhnihhgshgvnhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Original-Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3AE21C200A4; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:56:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface In-Reply-To: <8336h42ocy.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 64.147.123.19 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:239983 Archived-At: --4c1ad5278c7d4659a28a2c6956b78d76 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Jostein Kj=C3=B8nigsen > > Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:29:58 +0200 > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > >=20 > > Again, are there any objectively negative or adverse side-effects of= adding more default-faces which authors > > can use and users can customize? >=20 > You mean, except requiring all the other major modes to implement it, > including those outside the Emacs core? No other objections. >=20 I don=E2=80=99t think that=E2=80=99s a fair way of putting it.=20 Giving major-mode authors more options with regard to faces they can use= in their modes, does in no way -force- major-mode authors into using th= ose if they don=E2=80=99t think they provide value.=20 Right now major-mode authors are already inventing their own non-standar= d font-lock-faces and giving them standard options to use instead can IM= O only be considered an improvement.=20 --4c1ad5278c7d4659a28a2c6956b78d76 Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Sep 10,= 2019, at 4:54 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> From: Jostein Kj=C3=B8nigsen <jostein@secure.k= jonigsen.net>
> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:29:58 +020= 0
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Again, are there any objectively negative or adverse si= de-effects of adding more default-faces which authors
>= can use and users can customize?

You mean,= except requiring all the other major modes to implement it,
including those outside the Emacs core?  No other objections.



Giving major-mode author= s more options with regard to faces they can use in their modes, does in= no way -force- major-mode authors into using those if they don=E2=80=99= t think they provide value. 

Right now major-mode authors are already inventing their own = non-standard font-lock-faces and giving them standard options to use ins= tead can IMO only be considered an improvement. 
--4c1ad5278c7d4659a28a2c6956b78d76--