[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: face-remapping patch
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: face-remapping patch |
Date: |
Thu, 29 May 2008 08:02:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31:46PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Sorry, C-c C-c is just too close to C-x C-x. This posting was not
> finished.
>
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
> > (make-local-variable VARIABLE &optional locus)
> >
> > Make VARIABLE have a separate value in the given locus (defaulting to
> > the current buffer).
> >
> > A locus can be a buffer, a frame, a terminal, a window. When there is
> > more than one locus for which a variable may be local, the value is used
> > from the first locus in the list window - buffer - frame - terminal.
[...]
> Bing. A simple API, easy to understand, easy to use. And
> _transparent_.
Appealing. Humble suggestion: make the list of possible loci extensible,
with the above mentioned being the minimal, "built-in" set. I don't know
yet how an interface would look like, but several other classes of loci
suggest themselves: major modes, (human) languages, what not.
> Now XEmacs specifiers offer something more: you can specify local values
> for _classes_ of display, like B&W, or reduced color or so. We have
> something like that for faces.
Hm. Would that not be covered by your proposal? You'd just need a little
bit more of indirection. Your locus-local variable (locus=terminal) wouldn't
be a face itself, but a display class -- which then determines the face.
Whether it's worth it -- I don't know.
> However, I don't think the price for the generality of specifiers is
> worth the complexity in the particular implementation and documentation
> state of XEmacs. I did not understand them after trying for a
> considerable amount of time, and I am arrogant enough to consider
> something which I feel unable to understand as being off the complexity
> bell curve for reliable engineering.
:-)
Still I read your posts carefully.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIPkbzBcgs9XrR2kYRAgRCAJ4vLVerFAvcn7CgyS+u4sI98B6AIgCdEu0Y
px8GI/err2ku9Cb7fKpbelQ=
=OxM9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: face-remapping patch, (continued)
- Face realization (was: face-remapping patch), Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/28
- Re: Face realization (was: face-remapping patch), David Reitter, 2008/05/28
- Re: Face realization, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/29
- Re: face-remapping patch, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/28
- Re: face-remapping patch, David Kastrup, 2008/05/28
- Re: face-remapping patch, David Kastrup, 2008/05/28
- Re: face-remapping patch,
tomas <=
- Re: face-remapping patch, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/05/29
- Re: face-remapping patch, David Kastrup, 2008/05/29
- Re: face-remapping patch, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/05/30
- Re: face-remapping patch, Richard M Stallman, 2008/05/30
- Re: face-remapping patch, David Kastrup, 2008/05/30
- Re: face-remapping patch, Richard M Stallman, 2008/05/31
- Re: face-remapping patch, David Kastrup, 2008/05/31
- Re: face-remapping patch, Richard M Stallman, 2008/05/29
- Re: face-remapping patch, David Kastrup, 2008/05/29
- Specifiers (was: face-remapping patch), Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/29