font-lock-negation-char-face

font-lock-negation-char-face

[Stefan Monnier]

Let me just say that I find this new "feature" dubious.
- it makes things even more "angry fruit salad" and thus requires
  yet more tweaking to make the text legible again.
- it's unclear that these specific chars are particular sources of errors.
- why not have a more generic name like font-lock-important-detail-face,
  so it's at least not so absurdly narrow-scoped.


        Stefan "who's not interested in more lexical highlighting,
               as opposed to syntactic hilighting"

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Henrik Enberg]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Let me just say that I find this new "feature" dubious.
> - it makes things even more "angry fruit salad" and thus requires
>   yet more tweaking to make the text legible again.
> - it's unclear that these specific chars are particular sources of errors.
> - why not have a more generic name like font-lock-important-detail-face,
>   so it's at least not so absurdly narrow-scoped.

Indeed, I find that it makes my code much harder to read.  The choice of
a bold face as default is especially bad.  And as you say, I don't
really think people write !foo erroneously all that often.

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Henrik Enberg <henrik.enberg@telia.com>
> Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 08:15:59 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> 
> > Let me just say that I find this new "feature" dubious.
> > - it makes things even more "angry fruit salad" and thus requires
> >   yet more tweaking to make the text legible again.
> > - it's unclear that these specific chars are particular sources of errors.
> > - why not have a more generic name like font-lock-important-detail-face,
> >   so it's at least not so absurdly narrow-scoped.
> 
> Indeed, I find that it makes my code much harder to read.  The choice of
> a bold face as default is especially bad.  And as you say, I don't
> really think people write !foo erroneously all that often.

Let me join the choir and say that the effect of this change is
unpleasant at best, IMO.  I think this new feature should be at least
turned off by default, if not removed.

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Kim F. Storm]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Henrik Enberg <henrik.enberg@telia.com>
>> Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 08:15:59 +0200
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> 
>> > Let me just say that I find this new "feature" dubious.
>> > - it makes things even more "angry fruit salad" and thus requires
>> >   yet more tweaking to make the text legible again.
>> > - it's unclear that these specific chars are particular sources of errors.
>> > - why not have a more generic name like font-lock-important-detail-face,
>> >   so it's at least not so absurdly narrow-scoped.
>> 
>> Indeed, I find that it makes my code much harder to read.  The choice of
>> a bold face as default is especially bad.  And as you say, I don't
>> really think people write !foo erroneously all that often.
>
> Let me join the choir and say that the effect of this change is
> unpleasant at best, IMO.  I think this new feature should be at least
> turned off by default, if not removed.

And it makes wrong highlights too, e.g. the '!' in the following line:

  xassert (s != NULL);


When was this new feature discussed?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 5/7/05, Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> wrote:
> And it makes wrong highlights too

It's highlighting the "n" in #ifndef... That cannot be a feature, I hope.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Richard Stallman]

I think this feature should be removed now.

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Paul Pogonyshev]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> I think this feature should be removed now.

Maybe disabled by default is better.  I.e. make the offending face
inherit the default face with no additional attributes.  I don't
think it is so bad and unuseful to remove it altogether.

Paul

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Stefan Monnier]

>> I think this feature should be removed now.
> Maybe disabled by default is better.  I.e. make the offending face
> inherit the default face with no additional attributes.  I don't
> think it is so bad and unuseful to remove it altogether.

I think it should be made into a separate minor mode in a separate package,
along the same lines as what cwarn.el does.


        Stefan

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Richard Stallman]

    I think it should be made into a separate minor mode in a separate package,
    along the same lines as what cwarn.el does.

I wouldn't object to that.

Re: font-lock-negation-char-face

[Richard Stallman]

    > I think this feature should be removed now.

    Maybe disabled by default is better.

Does anyone (except the person who wrote it) like it?