address@hidden: which-func-face is poor]

[Richard Stallman]

I'm not much of a font aficionado; I hope someone else will
think about this.

------- Start of forwarded message -------
X-DL-MFrom: <address@hidden>
X-DL-Connect: <albion.dl.ac.uk [148.79.80.39]>
To: address@hidden
From: Dave Love <address@hidden>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:58:03 +0000
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: 2.397 : TO_HAS_SPACES
X-CCLRC-SPAM-bar: xx
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.37
Subject: which-func-face is poor
Sender: address@hidden
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
        tests=RCVD_IN_ORBS,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA
        version=2.55
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)

which-func-format is illegible in the mode line on this LCD display
under X with a black frame background -- there's hardly any contrast
with the mode-line face.  It's also bad in tty mode, where it's not
much more legible in a blue block on the otherwise grey mode line.

I think it's better for it to default to default.  The defface for it
needs a :version, by the way.


_______________________________________________
Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
------- End of forwarded message -------