From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs pretest: highlight line number in display-line-numbers-mode? Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 18:52:09 +0300 Message-ID: <83d15hddg6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <<>> <<<87a80ntah3.fsf@gmail.com> <25a064f1-c267-49f7-a8de-b28baee928ac@default>> <<834lquew6p.fsf@gnu.org>> <0da3bf1b-7d66-4462-8097-e9afe759e99d@default>> <<83376ee39c.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1508514770 6808 195.159.176.226 (20 Oct 2017 15:52:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:52:50 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 20 17:52:46 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1e5ZbG-0000np-SR for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:52:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54592 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e5ZbO-0006pV-6f for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:52:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43016) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e5Zaw-0006pJ-Lq for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:52:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e5Zar-0000sk-Pf for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:52:22 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37564) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e5Zar-0000sM-ME for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:52:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2900 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1e5Zar-0004p1-3c for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:52:17 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Drew Adams on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT)) 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: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:114593 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > > > > > . using a different face makes redisplay slightly slower > > > > (because it disallows some redisplay optimizations) > > > > > > Would those optimizations still be available if a > > > user chose the same face for both (but the faces > > > were different by default)? > > ? > > I guess you are confirming that the optimizations you > spoke of are a red herring here: It's not a red herring, you can see that in the code. > they would anyway be available whenever someone customizes the > current-line face to have the same appearance as the other-lines > face. The current-line face has the same appearance by default, making those optimizations possible. When the appearance is different, the optimizations are disabled. I hope what I say is now perfectly clear. It is not clear to me what change you are lobbying for, except for changing the defaults, which is something that was already asked and answered. > There are two faces, but they have the same appearance by default. > That's the misdesign. And as I already said, this "misdesign" has a good reason, so the "mis" part is uncalled for. You might disagree with my design, but please don't use denigrating terms just because you do. In any case, we already have several other faces that by default look the same, so this is not an odd case. > Please consider giving them a different appearance by > default. I already explained why I didn't think this was a good idea. What is the purpose of repeating the same request?