bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#64759: Broken faces


From: Juri Linkov
Subject: bug#64759: Broken faces
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 20:42:22 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/30.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)

>> 1. M-x make-empty-face RET foo RET
>> 2. M-x customize-face RET foo RET
>> 
>> Then output is:
>> 
>>   Hide Foo face: [sample]
>>       State : NO CUSTOMIZATION DATA; not intended to be customized.

Please note that the problem is still unfixed for
"NO CUSTOMIZATION DATA".

>>      nil
>>      -- Empty face --
>
> We are mis-communicating.  My point is that we need to explain in the
> documentation the effect of such a defface when the face is realized
> and displayed.  Lisp programmers need to understand that to be able to
> use this correctly and predictably.

For example, in *scratch* eval:

  (put-text-property (point-min) (point-max)
                     'font-lock-face (make-empty-face 'foo))

Then 'C-u C-x =' shows:

  There are text properties here:
    font-lock-face       foo

Then clicking on 'foo' shows:

  Face: foo (sample) (customize this face)
  Documentation:
  Not documented as a face.
             Family: unspecified
            Foundry: unspecified
              Width: unspecified
             Height: unspecified
             Weight: unspecified
              Slant: unspecified
         Foreground: unspecified
  DistantForeground: unspecified
         Background: unspecified
          Underline: unspecified
           Overline: unspecified
     Strike-through: unspecified
                Box: unspecified
            Inverse: unspecified
            Stipple: unspecified
               Font: unspecified
            Fontset: unspecified
             Extend: unspecified
            Inherit: unspecified

That's all that Lisp programmers need to know: that in an empty face
all attributes are unspecified.

>> > Only if "no better face to inherit from is available" in all of those
>> > cases.  Which I'm not sure is true.  If you are sure, please tell why
>> > the faces I put there are not better ideas.
>> 
>> Because they will cause the same problem as with display-time-date-and-time,
>> except that other faces are used less often, so it will take time until users
>> will notice these problems.
>
> display-time-date-and-time is used on the mode line, where the colors
> are different.  The other faces are for buffer text, so the problems
> with display-time-date-and-time don't necessarily apply.

It's possible that these faces are applied over other faces
that will break the default theme.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]