Re: BIKESHED: completion faces

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 18:37:53 +0000
> Cc: Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>, emacs-devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>, 
> 	Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> 
> > > > >   "first-difference" to "completion-emphasis" and
> > > > >   "common-part"  to "secondary-emphasis"
> > > >
> > > > I think secondary-emphasis is not a good name, it says nothing about
> > > > its use.  We should find a better name.
> > >
> > > "alternate-emphasis"?
> >
> > Same problem.  How about "match-emphasis"?
> 
> First, I hope we don't confuse ourselves, there is a prefix implicit
> here right? It's "completions" (or actually it should be "completion"
> singular).  Apologies if I've been sloppy in using and not using
> the full name.
> 
> So I'm proposing "completion-emphasis", which we seem to agree
> on

Not really, no.  It suffers from the same problem: too vague to say
what it's used for.

> for _primary_ emphasis, the thing that the matching style wants
> to highlight most prominently.
> 
> Regarding the second (but not necessarily secondary) face, for other
> things the completion style you are proposing "completion-match-emphasis",
> right? This is the one aliased to existing "completions-common-part".

The names "primary" and "secondary" are artificial and even
subjective.  We should try to find more descriptive terms that tell
more about the uses of the face.

> So "alternate", "supporting", "secondary" or anything that expresses
> that would be my choices.

Not mine, sorry.