From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#59347: 29.0.50; `:family` face setting ignored Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:52:17 +0200 Message-ID: <83bkoz11pa.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83bkp4bfqf.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn7s9txp.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmdk9pat.fsf@gnu.org> <83cz9j9zyu.fsf@gnu.org> <838rk77yfo.fsf@gnu.org> <834juu9aya.fsf@gnu.org> <7cc9e03786024fc72f3b@heytings.org> <83a64l65ai.fsf@gnu.org> <7cc9e0378678a092e6ee@heytings.org> <835yf962q4.fsf@gnu.org> <7cc9e03786754c9e0aaf@heytings.org> <83zgcl4jra.fsf@gnu.org> <7cc9e03786c281cffdd4@heytings.org> <83tu2t4ie9.fsf@gnu.org> <7cc9e03786e324ff82ef@heytings.org> <83bkp04gjl.fsf@gnu.org> <83leo42vm9.fsf@gnu.org> <83edtv12ru.fsf@gnu.org> <0d1ea3007f4b5ca9c1c3@heytings.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6564"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 59347@debbugs.gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 22 15:53:22 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUeG-0001Uo-SB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:53:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUe0-0005Ji-OF; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:53:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUdy-0005JD-IA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:53:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUdy-0007QR-9n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:53:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUdx-0002pP-Og for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:53:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:53:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 59347 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 59347-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B59347.166912873510816 (code B ref 59347); Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:53:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 59347) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Nov 2022 14:52:15 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50345 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUdC-0002oO-Tb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:52:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54830) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUdA-0002oA-4u for 59347@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:52:13 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUd3-0007Ku-TT; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:52:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=/oV6ZJ9mq4nf4jvxGtSdhXz6sLSMhx+tnZVGcLtosJY=; b=LBfKZ6NIY8Vi GG2fOXlSDrpOpArTxsloIlHYgsAlkO5KqYR1X3erFxe4X03rh1NhkPCQQXPRCn2hghcU0HlcRtDQl km1NK/3c0Ssn2mY0/ThBO9J5DXKcjT78t5c8rFx7g7qLj+j4dYo0P+K5JXGasVG0WtFMa1G6mi8Qw oYAGRtENJUu6up4MWS3WBkcRWRH1i0+APyCMWMsEqEpjl6btV3l/olSRVS3egZOslJOWOtdW9AUeG GaR5ug13nVI3JMSbyJLjCPZQHETn7v21g2r4ntbpFsw7XLGmdv2FoPZ48p04gxZuYiuZ4LCEX6RJb JQ3d+YReXzOzGDcHD5wnGg==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxUd1-0000cV-B9; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:52:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <0d1ea3007f4b5ca9c1c3@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:39:16 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:248647 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:39:16 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 59347@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Why do you expect to get a variable pitch font? > > > > The variable-pitch face should use a variable pitch font, shouldn't it? > Unless there are no such fonts installed on the computer of course, in > which case it could fall back to a monospace font. You know it and I know it, but how should the code which examines the fonts know it? AFAICT, nothing tells it to reject fixed-pitch fonts. Or did I miss something? > > Emacs tries to find a font from the same family, but if that fails for > > some reason, all bets are off wrt whether the font we find will be > > variable-pitch or not. Or what am I missing? > > Why should the weight of the default face influence the font selected for > the variable-pitch face Because if the default face is bold, so should be other faces, preferably. To keep a consistent appearance, so to say. And the same goes for slant and width. > to the point that even when variable pitch fonts > are installed on the computer, they are all flatly rejected because they > do not explicitly support say the 'semi-bold' weight? The weight of the > default face should only influence the weight of the other faces How are "other faces", where you agree that the weight should matter, different from the variable-pitch face, where you don't agree? Anyway, I'm okay with doing what you suggest as a fallback, if the code we have now somehow didn't produce satisfactory results. Provided we can define reasonable criteria for what is "satisfactory". But I don't think it's right to throw away these 2 attributes to begin with, no. > With a 'semi-bold' default face, a 'bold' variable pitch font is a > legitimate candidate for the variable-pitch face. But your patch doesn't "loosen" just one attribute, it does that with all 3 in one blow. Maybe if we "loosen" just one, we will be able to find a match for the other two. I don't think font_score guarantees that, does it?