RE: can't set both mode-line color and default frame font?

[Drew Adams]

> I meant that if Lisp does choose -to- customize, that should
> take precedence because it is a choice (there's your reason).

And setting a face preference via an X resource is _not_ choosing?

I still don't see an argument (a reason) that applies only to `custom-file'
and not to X resources. Flip it around, and it makes just as much sense
(little).

> There's nothing stopping us from supporting any or all of these:
>
> (customize-face-override-resources 'default '((:background ...)))
> (customize-face-defer-to-resources 'default '((:foreground ...)))
> ;; or
> (customize-face 'default '((:stipple ...))) ; always overrides resources
> (load-resources here)                       ; ok, now we override
> customize
> (customize-face 'fringe '((:box ...)))      ; this overrides them again
>
> The question is whether that's better or worse (I said "complicated" as
> the metric) than doing something clever in a custom-file (or .emacs) or in
> C when loading these preferences.

AFAICT, instead of an argument _why_ Lisp (.emacs or `custom-file') should
take precedence over X resources, you've assumed that it does, and then
shown that we could code some Lisp that controls (implements) precedence.
That assumes that that Lisp code is in control.

Anyway, I doubt we're going to get anywhere with this tack. I was hoping
someone had a good reason for such a precedence choice, but it doesn't
matter. As I said, I see no special reason against it.