On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 10:59 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> I'm sorry you interpret what I wrote as rude, or insulting, or anything of
> that kind. If anything, it was supposed to be mildly humorous. And when I
> say "you aren't supposed to", I don't mean you personally.
>

Thank you, it's all good and I'm glad it was only a misinterpretation on my
part. For what it's worth, I do appreciate the *massive* amount of user
engagement choose to do. Thank you for that and for everything else you do
for Emacs.

P.S. My personal conclusion from this, and from many past bug reports that
> causes us to add explicit remapping in many places, is that face-remapping
> was a clever hack that should not have been allowed to happen without a
> thorough rewrite of all the basic code which supports faces and their
> merging. Hindsight is always 20/20.
>

That's a very interesting conclusion, and it makes sense.

Would it make sense to extend the face doc strings that should not use
inheritance to indicate that? That combined with the backwards
compatibility fix you suggested may very well be a good compromise for the
current circumstance.

Alternatively, if there were a path to deprecating header-line and
mode-line then the compatibility fix could be skipped.

Thanks,

Aaron