[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent)
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent) |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:45:51 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:13:11PM +0200, Kim F. Storm wrote:
> However, when you want to customize a group, I think having the face
> suffix makes a big difference to the user.
>
> E.g. try customize-group on ido; there you will see the following
> headings to customize ido's faces:
>
> Ido First Match Face: (sample) [Show Face]
>
> which I definitely prefer to
>
> Ido First Match: (sample) [Show Face]
Have you tried it with a non `-face' face? Customize-face will automatically
put in a `face:' after the name to make it more clear.
> So in my option -face suffix is preferable, and I would actually
> argue in favour of _recommending_ using it (which most lisp
> packages seem to do anyway)!
No, it's probably more about half and half. In particular, the `base' faces
(those defined in faces.el) don't use it.
As far as I can figure, the use of `-face' results from people confusing
faces with variables that point to faces; it seems that the latter used to
be more common than they are now (e.g. the variables and faces used by
font-lock).
-Miles
--
P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false,
for reasons of military security.
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, (continued)
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Bill Wohler, 2002/10/23
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/24
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Mark D. Baushke, 2002/10/24
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent),
Miles Bader <=
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/25
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/25
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/26
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/26
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Henrik Enberg, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/28