From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Identifying the face between STRETCH and right fringe. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:49:54 +0200 Message-ID: <837egxfs59.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h8gbis2d.fsf@gnu.org> <83zhu0f6tt.fsf@gnu.org> <83sgzrgb1f.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2fbg5bq.fsf@gnu.org> <83lg5jfs9o.fsf@gnu.org> <83a7luhnid.fsf@gnu.org> <838t1ehi6v.fsf@gnu.org> <831s76gxkq.fsf@gnu.org> <83y39dg2mh.fsf@gnu.org> <83bm69fshb.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1543398469 27138 195.159.176.226 (28 Nov 2018 09:47:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rpluim@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 28 10:47:44 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gRwRc-0006yP-Fz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:47:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46844 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRwTj-0005da-0v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 04:49:55 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41169) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRwTZ-0005dS-OQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 04:49:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRwTX-0007pY-9l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 04:49:43 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57899) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRwTX-0007pN-70; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 04:49:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1598 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gRwTW-0003Fm-RN; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 04:49:43 -0500 In-reply-to: <83bm69fshb.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:42:40 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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:231481 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:42:40 +0200 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > From: Robert Pluim > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:00:53 +0100 > > > > In this particular case extend_face_to_end_of_line has already done: > > > > default_face = > > FACE_FROM_ID_OR_NULL (f, lookup_basic_face (it->w, f, DEFAULT_FACE_ID)); > > > > so there'd be no additional cost > > Yes, but this part could (and probably should) be moved to after the > 'return', because default_face is not used before that. And btw, when the default face is remapped, its background color no longer has to be the same as the frame's background, right? Which I guess is another reason why we use FRAME_BACKGROUND_PIXEL there.