Re: re-builder highlighting incorrect for more than 3 groupings

[David Kastrup]

"Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:

> On 5/2/06, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> A complete waste of code for no apparent good whatsoever.
>
> Then remove the definitions for faces reb-match-[1-3]. reb-match-0
> should suffice. At the very least, reb-match-[2,3] are unnecessary,
> from a zen-minimalistic POV.

The cycling patch was not reducing the number of distinct colors:
there never was a proposal to add more _distinct_ colors to the
standard scheme.

That's what "no apparent good whatsoever" is about: just defining more
faces in a cyclic fashion does not change the appearance in any way.

> Not to mention that "no apparent good whatsoever" is highly
> subjective, isn't it?

No, it isn't.  If the colors are the same anyway, there is no point in
attaining that effect in a more verbose manner.

>> So what?  It is not like the cycling code would keep them from doing
>> that if they want to.
>
> No. But I think we could agree that there are at least three criteria
> (perhaps more) to define something as a good default for Emacs:
>
> - Defaulting to that something makes Emacs safer out-of-the-box
> - Defaulting to that something is easier to understand for a newbie
>  - If not a default, most people interested in the feature will set
> or define that something in their .emacs
>
> I was hypothesizing about the third condition.

So what?  You have not given _any_ kind of rationale where this third
condition would in any way be affected.  Users can define more colors
if they really want to.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum