From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6693: 24.0.50; font-lock-(builtin|doc) faces are *way* too close Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:12:16 -0700 Message-ID: References: <05CB9D294C4646D5A2F574AB5A9DFA55@us.oracle.com> <13C511D445304C4C94EE650D4796ECD0@us.oracle.com> <4E110EB6.3060407@harpegolden.net> <497D3295AEF04C44B010A9DEF6596B31@us.oracle.com> <4E11901A.3060408@harpegolden.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1309800705 14190 80.91.229.12 (4 Jul 2011 17:31:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen' , 6693@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'David De La Harpe Golden'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 04 19:31:41 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qdmzk-00015O-Jk for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:31:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44629 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qdmzj-0001EH-Pz for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:31:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50565) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qdllh-00070V-8z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:13:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qdllf-0007bJ-6z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:13:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:55112) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qdlle-0007bF-US for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:13:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qdlle-00068c-4O; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:13:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:13:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6693 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6693-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6693.130979596923575 (code B ref 6693); Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:13:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6693) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Jul 2011 16:12:49 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QdllQ-00068C-O8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:12:49 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QdllN-00067y-TL for 6693@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:12:46 -0400 Original-Received: from rtcsinet21.oracle.com (rtcsinet21.oracle.com [66.248.204.29]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p64GCbqw021857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 16:12:39 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by rtcsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p64GCZWZ001116 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 16:12:36 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt103.oracle.com (abhmt103.oracle.com [141.146.116.55]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p64GCUpj026864; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:12:30 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.32.87) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:12:30 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4E11901A.3060408@harpegolden.net> Thread-Index: Acw6McFvbzYm/4/sTnOOxN1wZAKmmQAMV/AQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: rtcsinet21.oracle.com [66.248.204.29] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4E11E677.010D:SCFSTAT5015188, ss=1, re=-4.000, fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:13:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:47964 Archived-At: > > `font-lock-builtin-face' (":type", ":group") > > `font-lock-doc-face' (the doc strings) > > `font-lock-keyword-face' ("defcustom") > > > > But especially the first two of these are close. > > Hmm. Looking at your screenshot reminded me: but then what about > font-lock-comment-face (Firebrick)? Do you also see it as a bit too > close to font-lock-doc-face (VioletRed4), but from the other > direction (on the hue wheel)? All three of these are close: font-lock-variable-name-face font-lock-doc-face font-lock-comment-face However, I personally am not bothered by those similarities. Again, personally I see font-lock mostly with Emacs-Lisp code, so I might not be the best one to ask. There is almost never any problem confusing a comment with a string (in Emacs Lisp). I suppose that a string and a comment on the same line might be confusable, but in practice I don't think there is a problem here (worth trying to fix, possibly messing up other things). Similarly, I don't see a significant problem from the similarity between `font-lock-variable-name-face' and the others, because of context. Yidong makes the argument (essentially) that we should not take context into consideration, since faces can inherit from the font-lock faces. IMHO, that is rather a problem with inheriting faces (esp. inheriting willy nilly), but we've been through that discussion before and I know that I will not be able to convince you (pl.) about that. Wrt `font-lock-builtin-face', I say go for it: make some change and see what happens. My guess is that medium blue would be better than royal blue, but do what you think is best. I'm pretty much done here. I mainly wanted to draw your attention to the problem, reporting the color similarity for built-in and doc (and my personal preference for the previous situation (Orchid)). Fix the problem as you see fit, and we'll see then whether anyone has a better approach etc. I should probably have said that a second problem I have with the MediumViolet4 choice for the builtin face is that it does not stand out from black - IOW, it is not sufficiently noticeable, for keywords. That's no doubt another reason why I preferred Orchid, and a reason why my argument about differing contexts doesn't mitigate the problem here. In sum (for the second problem): builtin doesn't stand out enough, and I don't (personally) care whether it is "too light" (e.g. Orchid). What's important for something like keywords is that they stand out.