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: Problems with setting face attributes for specific frames Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:09:19 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1191337806 22928 80.91.229.12 (2 Oct 2007 15:10:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, hannes@saeurebad.de, kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 02 17:10:02 2007 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 4.50) id 1IcjNg-0001kw-FH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:09:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IcjNc-0007jW-Gq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:09:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IcjNZ-0007j3-Ni for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:09:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IcjNY-0007hp-Bd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:09:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IcjNY-0007hm-4N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:09:44 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IcjNP-0006g8-MO; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:09:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (rgmgw1.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.110]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l92F9QT6007353; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:09:26 -0500 Original-Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150]) by rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id l92F7GaV013286; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:09:25 -0600 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-csvpn-gw2-141-144-72-229.vpn.oracle.com by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3261240221191337759; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:09:19 -0700 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:80134 Archived-At: > > I don't understand all of what you're proposing or what the > > problem is that you're fixing. I think you're proposing removing > > the FRAME arg from `set-face-attribute' (perhaps among other > > changes). Is that correct? > > > > Yes. > > OK, but I still don't understand the problem that you're > fixing. Could you perhaps summarize it? > > If we get rid of using `set-face-attribute' for specific frames, the > resulting simplification would make it possible to fix the handling of > changes in background mode due to setting the background color. AFAICT, I do not currently change a face attribute for a single frame, but it sounds like a reasonable thing to want to do. Is getting rid of that possibility really necessary to be able to handle "changes in background mode due to setting the background color"? I still don't understand what that problem is, BTW. In your description of it in this thread, you say that it has to do with `set-background-color' calling `frame-set-background'. Why does doing that affect the frame background mode? And what does changing the frame background (with or without the background mode) have to do with changing an attribute of an individual face for that frame? Conceptually, at least, those would seem to be separate things. Perhaps the problem is that they are not separate in the implementation? You say that you can alternatively solve this problem by keeping "user-specified single-frame face attributes separate from the actual face attributes deduced..." If the former are interfering with the frame background mode, then that sounds like a better approach than simply getting rid of them. To me, they sound like a useful feature, perhaps even more useful than the frame-background-mode, which is anyway problematic wrt what constitutes "light" and "dark" etc. In any case, as I say, I don't use that feature today. The more important problem you would create for me (by your other proposal) would be to get rid of the ability to change a face attribute globally (for all frames at once). What is the reason for that proposal? AFAICT, you gave no reason; you just said you are thinking of making that change.