Re: +face-remapping-20040505-0.patch

[Kim F. Storm]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:54:20PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >     BTW, I think perhaps the name `face-override-alist' is a better
> >     (clearer) name than `face-remapping-alist', especially if it essentially
> >     supports the same syntax as a face property.  What do you think?
> > 
> > Don't we use the term "remapping" for other such features,
> > such as the keymap feature to remap one command into another command?
> 
> The one instance I find (via apropos) is:
> 
>    command-remapping
>      Function: Return the remapping for command COMMAND in current keymaps.
> 
> [`remap' yields the same result.]
> 
> The reasons I like override better are:
> 
>  (1) Its meaning is pretty obvious, and more visceral.  For instance I think
>      if someone didn't know about this feature, and was trying to find out
>      why their faces looked weird, they'd be more likely to chance upon or
>      recognize `override' as being the likely culprit than `remapping'.
> 
>  (2) Remapping does seem more to imply a one-to-one replacement of one face
>      name with another; if indeed the feature allows merging faces, or even
>      un-named face attributes to be used, then I think override fits better.

IMO, override also seems better than remapping in this case.

We also have e.g. overriding-local-map for buffer local bindings.

Maybe overriding-face-attribute-alist or some such...


-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk