From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: re-builder highlighting incorrect for more than 3 groupings Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:38:26 +0200 Message-ID: <85r73csr59.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87r73ljvfa.fsf@myusenet.dyndns.org> <444F19B7.9080906@gmx.at> <44532003.1000709@gmx.at> <85zmi0ssml.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146562752 25405 80.91.229.2 (2 May 2006 09:39:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 09:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Kevin Rodgers , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 02 11:39:09 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FarLR-0000Lp-4h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 11:39:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FarLQ-00058A-RK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 05:39:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FarLF-00057b-HA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 05:38:49 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FarLF-000573-0j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 05:38:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FarLE-00056o-Qx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 05:38:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FarLM-0003UF-Bd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 05:38:56 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1FarL7-0001RG-9O; Tue, 02 May 2006 05:38:41 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id E6A0D1C4CD65; Tue, 2 May 2006 11:38:26 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: "Juanma Barranquero" In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Tue, 2 May 2006 11:30:22 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:53774 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 5/2/06, David Kastrup wrote: > >> A complete waste of code for no apparent good whatsoever. > > Then remove the definitions for faces reb-match-[1-3]. reb-match-0 > should suffice. At the very least, reb-match-[2,3] are unnecessary, > from a zen-minimalistic POV. The cycling patch was not reducing the number of distinct colors: there never was a proposal to add more _distinct_ colors to the standard scheme. That's what "no apparent good whatsoever" is about: just defining more faces in a cyclic fashion does not change the appearance in any way. > Not to mention that "no apparent good whatsoever" is highly > subjective, isn't it? No, it isn't. If the colors are the same anyway, there is no point in attaining that effect in a more verbose manner. >> So what? It is not like the cycling code would keep them from doing >> that if they want to. > > No. But I think we could agree that there are at least three criteria > (perhaps more) to define something as a good default for Emacs: > > - Defaulting to that something makes Emacs safer out-of-the-box > - Defaulting to that something is easier to understand for a newbie > - If not a default, most people interested in the feature will set > or define that something in their .emacs > > I was hypothesizing about the third condition. So what? You have not given _any_ kind of rationale where this third condition would in any way be affected. Users can define more colors if they really want to. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum