From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: About the :distant-foreground face attribute Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:27:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <90ac3695-56cc-4b9a-93b3-ff3407ee3b1d@default> References: <<35efc77e-e132-4700-ae0f-d95079293ff5@default>> <<83fvowdf4j.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389306485 6813 80.91.229.3 (9 Jan 2014 22:28:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:28:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jan.h.d@swipnet.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 09 23:28:10 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W1O5B-0005A7-Na for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 23:28:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54477 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1O5B-0003jn-AN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:28:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55503) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1O50-0003hF-5X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:28:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1O4r-00077P-J7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:27:58 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:17268) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1O4i-00075v-EF; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:27:40 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id s09MRckA002820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:27:39 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s09MRcnM005019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:27:38 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s09MRcCw005009; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:27:38 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83fvowdf4j.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:167989 Archived-At: > > > Why do you assume that the previous form will not be accepted? > > > Of course, it will be. > > > > Accepted by what? Are you thinking of `defface'? Why would you > > assume that I assume that? >=20 > What else can you possibly think of, when we are talking about > defface? Yes, and why would you assume that I assume that the previous form would not be accepted by (an updated) `defface'? Of course I assume the opposite, as I said. I assume that you=20 will DTRT for defface, to handle the new form. `defface' is not the problem I see. > > That's not the point. It's about being accepted by, recognized > > by, and useful for other, existing code. >=20 > Other existing code should never see this. We are talking about > defface, and defface alone. At least I was. And I was not. I was talking, as Yidong pointed out, about existing code trying to deal with a redefined `foreground' attribute value (soon to be allowed to be a cons perhaps). First, the idea was to use an additional face attribute; lately, the talk is about a redefined attribute value, allowing it to be a list (of two strings), in addition to a string. IIUC. Mille excuses, if I did not understand the latest proposal correctly.