From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: escape-glyph issues Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:20:40 +0300 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <87wtopa92r.fsf@jurta.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1119245982 14337 80.91.229.2 (20 Jun 2005 05:39:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:39:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 20 07:39:40 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DkF0P-0007IQ-B5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 07:39:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DkF6Z-0005WY-AB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:45:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DkF66-0005NQ-Oo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:45:28 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DkF5u-0005Ht-AI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:45:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DkF5u-0005Hq-7E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:45:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [194.126.101.111] (helo=mail.neti.ee) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DkEyR-00057L-Vr; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:37:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.neti.ee (80-235-32-86-dsl.mus.estpak.ee [80.235.32.86]) by Relayhost1.neti.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8742321FC; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:34:54 +0300 (EEST) Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: (Miles Bader's message of "Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:33:39 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.2.1 (20041222) (Debian) at neti.ee 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:39154 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:39154 > Juri made the following change without discussion: I made this change to let all people try alternative colors and tell whether they like these colors better. > * faces.el (escape-glyph): Use less loud colors pink2 and red4. > > I think this looks far worse on a dark background (it plays the neat > trick of being both less visible and more annoying at the same time; ============ This is the main difference between your preferred colors and colors proposed by me. I selected less visible colors intentionally. The initial purpose of highlighting control codes and nbsp with escape-glyph was to not help users to find all such characters in the buffer, but to inform users that displayed ASCII characters are different from real characters. Using too loud colors would be annoying for most users. It is very like turning show-trailing-whitespace with its bright red on by default. It helps users to see trailing whitespace when enabled deliberately, but by default highlighting the trailing whitespace is annoying. The same applies to escape-glyph. Moreover, show-trailing-whitespace is a buffer-local variable that can be set on a per-buffer basis. With escape-glyph users can't do that. The colors I proposed are less loud but still distinguishable from the default foreground color. > So which do people like better? It's pity we have no formal voting process like other projects have. It would let resolve such issues easily. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/