From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: can we please define a face for compile.el mouseover? Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:32:00 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297823539 4771 80.91.229.12 (16 Feb 2011 02:32:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:32:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 16 03:32:14 2011 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PpXBd-00011z-CB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:32:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49611 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpXBc-0003Yj-IA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:32:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38715 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpXBU-0003Xb-VS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:32:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpXBT-0005H6-T2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:32:04 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:45523 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpXBT-0005H0-F0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:32:03 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEADvFWk1MCqmX/2dsb2JhbAClYXS9QoVeBIUGj0M X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,477,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="91842671" Original-Received: from 76-10-169-151.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([76.10.169.151]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 15 Feb 2011 21:32:00 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 8665066188; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:32:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:41:58 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.183 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:136086 Archived-At: >> > Can we please define a face to be used for the `mouse-face' >> > property in the `compile.el' code? >> Why do you want a different mouse-face in compile.el than elsewhere? > I want users to _be able_ to customize mouseover appearance > differently in one context from another. I don't want to _require_ > them to use different faces any more than I want to require them to > use the same face (the case today, and not even customizable). I understand, the question is about *you* as a user. > In my own case, I want mouseover in compilation/grep buffers to just > underline the text. But I generally want mouseover to use face > `highlight' elsewhere. So, can you explain why? Also, is that really the only case where you want mouse-face to look different? > Users should be able to do it by _customizing_ the particular face > used for mouseover in the particular context. Why complicate things > unnecessarily? One might be able to use face remapping here and there > all over the place to simulate face customization, but why? Because adding umpteen customization variables for all the cases where some user might want to change a face makes no sense. So if there's a good reason why this particular case is likely to happen to many users, a customization variable might be justified, but otherwise having a generic solution (e.g. face-remapping) seems quite sufficient. Stefan