RE: About the :distant-foreground face attribute

[Drew Adams]

> > > Why do you assume that the previous form will not be accepted?
> > > Of course, it will be.
> >
> > Accepted by what?  Are you thinking of `defface'?  Why would you
> > assume that I assume that?
> 
> What else can you possibly think of, when we are talking about
> defface?

Yes, and why would you assume that I assume that the previous form
would not be accepted by (an updated) `defface'?

Of course I assume the opposite, as I said.  I assume that you 
will DTRT for defface, to handle the new form.  `defface' is not
the problem I see.

> > That's not the point.  It's about being accepted by, recognized
> > by, and useful for other, existing code.
> 
> Other existing code should never see this.  We are talking about
> defface, and defface alone.  At least I was.

And I was not.  I was talking, as Yidong pointed out, about
existing code trying to deal with a redefined `foreground'
attribute value (soon to be allowed to be a cons perhaps).

First, the idea was to use an additional face attribute; lately,
the talk is about a redefined attribute value, allowing it to be
a list (of two strings), in addition to a string.  IIUC.
Mille excuses, if I did not understand the latest proposal correctly.