RE: facemenu-unlisted-faces

[Drew Adams]

        Perhaps we are miscommunicating. AFAIK, faces are
        customizable, which means that they are designed
        to be customized.

    No it doesn't mean that, any more than the existence of a "variable"
    means its value is meant to be changed, or the existence of a function
    name means that its function definition is meant to be changed.

    Almost anything in Emacs can be changed.  But most Emacs facilities do
    NOT try to be bulletproof against all changes that someone might make.
    It would be counterproductive.  So please forget about arguing that "X
    has to be bulletproof against changing Y merely because Y can be
    changed."

I give up.

FWIW - I never argued that anything should be bulletproof or that anything
shouldn't be changeable. My argument was that applying a text property (such
as boldness) to text is conceptually simpler and closer to what newbies are
used to than is applying a face to text. That's all.

You argued that face `fixed-pitch' cannot accomodate the model of applying a
property/attribute/style, and that the user needs to think in terms of
applying a face in this case - that is, the UI needs to treat it as a face,
exceptionally. I argued that we could treat fixed-pitchness in the UI the
same way we treat boldness, and there is no need for users to monkey with
face `fixed-pitch' at this level. It is no different from any other face;
all faces would be available in the faces display, and none (including
`fixed-pitch') would need to be available in the top-level menu.

The discussion about variables vs constants came up because I mentioned that
the face name "fixed-pitch" is an exception to the way most faces are named
(in terms of their use, not their appearance), and there is nothing
*necessarily* fixed-pitch about that face, since it could be changed.
Understanding the concept of "face" includes understanding that a face is
changeable, and that is not true of text properties.