[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#51465: [External] : Re: bug#51465: 27.2; `face-all-attributes' doc o
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#51465: [External] : Re: bug#51465: 27.2; `face-all-attributes' doc or behavior (?) |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Oct 2021 19:19:56 +0300 |
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> CC: "51465-done@debbugs.gnu.org" <51465-done@debbugs.gnu.org>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:11:22 +0000
>
> > No, it isn't wrong: the "default attributes for newly created frames"
> > are those the face has before applying the definitions in defface.
>
> Hopefully that is what you've added to the doc, to clarify it.
Yes.
> That said and done, what a user expects as the
> "default" behavior (for new frames, for example)
> is very likely to differ from this other kind of
> "default".
When the frame is created, you see the faces after application of the
spec in defface, so these defaults are never seen in that case.
> I hope you've come up with some terminology to
> distinguish the two, i.e., some way to talk about
> (what I expect is) the more immediate/likely user
> understanding of "default" for new frames.
I see no reason to invent new terminology. I just explained what
those defaults are and why they aren't seen after the frame is
created.
> > > (what's the point of returning `unspecified' everywhere?).
> >
> > Only if no default values were defined via set-face-attribute.
>
> OK, but what's the point in that case, even if
> it's the only case? Not a rhetorical question.
> I expect there is some use/point; but I have no
> idea what it might be.
I don't know either. This is an old function; perhaps it can be
useful in some rare cases.