From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-trunk-diffs] Changes to emacs/etc/NEWS Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:15:04 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87acsps7qw.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87y8g8oyry.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1102720775 25966 80.91.229.6 (10 Dec 2004 23:19:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:19:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 11 00:19:29 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ccu2p-0005aL-00 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:19:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CcuCo-0003db-02 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:29:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CcuCO-0003Qx-Sh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:29:21 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CcuCM-0003Pq-N3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:29:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CcuCM-0003Pg-JB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:29:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ccu2G-0006X2-HM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:18:52 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Cctya-0007m1-VB; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:15:05 -0500 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: <87y8g8oyry.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:59:40 -0500) 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: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:30984 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:30984 > , but you'll also lose flexibility since it won't be possible to > specify a default for a subset of the face spec. > How much is that flexibility worth, in practice? > Which cases use it? Well, to me when you replace 1 simple concept with 2 less powerful ones, On grounds of principle, it is clear what is better. Making defface follow the general practice of the rest of Lisp is more important than making it more powerful to write defface specs in a terser way. When I read that statement about flexibility, I thought you were making a practical argument that real defspecs would be more complex and harder to read. Can you show me a real practical loss from this change?