[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Buffer-local faces
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Buffer-local faces |
Date: |
Wed, 05 May 2004 04:09:07 -0400 |
A _different_ feature that might work is a way to mark a face attribute as
`non overridable'. For instance if a face attribute could be a list like
(fixed VALUE), where VALUE is a normal value for that attribute, face
merging would always use the `base' value for that attribute instead of the
`normally overriding' value.
I really dislike this idea. Next someone would want a way to mark a
face attribute as super-overriding so as to override the 'non
overridable' marker. Then someone would want a way to mark a face
attribute as 'really non-overridable'. I call this the inheritance
arms race.
I see no reason to take even one step down the path.
It isn't really necessary.
- Re: Buffer-local faces, (continued)
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Miles Bader, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Miles Bader, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/05
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/05
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Miles Bader, 2004/05/06
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/05
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/05
- Re: Buffer-local faces,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, David Kastrup, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Miles Bader, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Kim F. Storm, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/04
- Re: Buffer-local faces, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/05