From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: escape-glyph issues Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:03 +0900 Message-ID: References: <87wtopa92r.fsf@jurta.org> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1119247940 17667 80.91.229.2 (20 Jun 2005 06:12:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:12:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 20 08:12:11 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DkFVq-0003H9-RY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:12:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DkFc0-0001bJ-Mf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:18:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DkFaG-0001Tw-KV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:16:37 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DkFaD-0001TN-LA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:16:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DkFaB-0001Jg-8T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:16:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [202.32.8.214] (helo=tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DkFLu-0006Di-7p; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:01:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp (mailgate53.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.160] (may be forged)) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W01080315) with ESMTP id j5K5x5n25850; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:05 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id j5K5x5416948; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:05 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.46]) by mailsv3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILSV4-NEC) with ESMTP id j5K5x5X10141; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:05 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from relay21.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.16] [10.29.19.16]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:05 +0900 Original-Received: from edtmg05.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.26.17.202] [10.26.17.202]) by relay21.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:04 +0900 Original-Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edtmg05.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j5K5x4RJ014182; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:04 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mctpc71 (mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp [10.30.118.121]) by mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.8/EDcg v2.01-mc/1046780839) with ESMTP id j5K5x3Kt017321; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:03 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by mctpc71 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 8ECB95A8; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:03 +0900 (JST) Original-To: Juri Linkov System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <87wtopa92r.fsf@jurta.org> (Juri Linkov's message of "Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:20:40 +0300") Original-Lines: 26 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:39155 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:39155 Juri Linkov writes: > It helps users to see trailing whitespace when > enabled deliberately, but by default highlighting the trailing > whitespace is annoying. The same applies to escape-glyph. I think the color you chose is in fact _more annoying_; perversely, it's less easy to locate such characters in the buffer -- it's `fuzzy', one's eye has some notion that there's something wrong, but one can't quite see what it is (perhaps this is why it's annoying). > The colors I proposed are less loud but still distinguishable from the > default foreground color. [You didn't "propose", you changed it; the argument that you were doing to allow others to try it out sounds like weasel wording to me.] This exact issue (the color of the escape-glyph face) was argued about at great length, and the colors you changed were the result. Maybe you weren't aware of the previous argument about it. Anyway, I will change it back. -Miles -- Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?