From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Yates Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: faces `compilation-info' and `compilation-line-number' Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:02:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <17A17EAE244A46F7A9E2ACC99A99E0C7@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297828962 24908 80.91.229.12 (16 Feb 2011 04:02:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:02:42 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 16 05:02:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PpYb5-0007qZ-LA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:02:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39216 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpYb4-0004D8-VB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:02:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36970 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpYay-0004CZ-Dh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:02:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpYax-00032P-IB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:02:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.216.41]:64742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpYax-00032C-Fa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:02:27 -0500 Original-Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so825117qwa.0 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:02:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BX2F0UA+JG9vTwnUduDHeq8INDMQ4KvClVrRpDiLMTU=; b=ftWzBLrMaS1MNJiNWGvsprD3zA27orf+8HVBaBT0rZ+52LTRc0ARNQuNyV0zdBgORq yW3Unt5daCqLyHCDbm3EyVTjCIIRZj/BWk5n0BX9s0+YsFcUZzgPd4hjzBZh0RJyCBwN zpiH1wL64VA27p305ovKrAFiXfLCauHnjd5yg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=ItVX0Ul9XnN6ZWrRaaTWjD8YUS9jljE0+5iQ/7gWdPhTK7LrVldfjwoKHmIsc2qBHW xBb8tOba2bMXqVSevId9ihpKTybcaNI0ueDvaOcFZZzRNLDSIvKf71KFalu4mZUZ5evU bK43QxYo8o7nytZqA+tdkXdUudz2eESR2uqR4= Original-Received: by 10.224.2.209 with SMTP id 17mr120734qak.94.1297828946305; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:02:26 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.220.187.199 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:02:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: OXMogL8eEje6AQYXWdA9TnOiOqw X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.216.41 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:136088 Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 in "Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions" Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > The basic problem is that faces are not colors. Faces are not fonts. > (Where have I heard this before? ;-) A face is a semantic component, > intended to express meaning. Common meanings should have a common > expression. Somewhat incoherently I attempted to introduce another perspective. On reflection my mistake seems to have been to take issue with Stephen's definition of a face. What I had wanted to show is that users often customize faces for reasons other than semantic consistency. That they use faces as a poor man's substitute for the theming capability present in many GUI frameworks. This new thread hinges not on aligning semantics but on which elements in a given setting merit more or less visual emphasis. That was exactly the perspective I tried to capture in my earlier posting. I have come to think that what emacs lacks is a palette framework. I imagine the palette framework as a partial order of degrees of emphasis. For lack of a better term I will call the members of this partial order roles. This ordering relationship would be captured in the role names. Thus we might have garish strident-2 strident-1a, strident-1b emphasis-2 emphasis-1a, emphasis-1c, emphasis-1c normal deemphasis-1a , deemphasis-1b deemphasis-2 (High lighting probably belongs in this list by I am not sure exactly where.) Emacs would provide style guidance for the palette roles. E.g. garish applies to a limited span (a word or token, not the better part of a line); strident-1a/b are appropriate for entire lines. An actual palette is realized by associating with each role: - a basic foreground/background color pair - a font modification rule. Examples: base, bold else base, italic else underline else base Notice that a palette is less than a face because it is not associated with a font or font family. Applying a palette to a font family would result in a basic set of faces (e.g. palette-garish, palette-strident-2, palette-normal, etc). These faces could then form the basis for a set of derived faces that would introduce a base set of semantic notions. /john