Re: [Feature request] face property `raise'

[Miles Bader]

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:17:53PM +0200, Wedler, Christoph wrote:
>  >      c. category attribute
>  >     ii. obsolete, use the symbol as an additional face (with lowest
>  >         prio)
>  > That would be necessary.
> 
> Same as above (backward-compatibility).

Your code is not a replacement for category -- category does much more.

So why do you keep saying it's necessary only for `backward-compatibility'?

> Without extra checks for backward-compatibility properties ('category'
> etc) and if the above answer is b, there don't need to be a difference
> with the efficiency.  Otherwise, there might be...

Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support this conclusion?

It sounds like your change would end up checking for many more properties...

-Miles
-- 
Next to fried food, the South has suffered most from oratory.
                        -- Walter Hines Page