|
From: | Daniel Colascione |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] About the :distant-foreground face attribute |
Date: | Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:15:06 -0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 |
On 01/15/2014 01:12 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:03:29 -0800 From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hiddenIt has been a long tradition of Emacs not to generalize before there's a clear and present need to.Sure. The problem with :adjust-colors or some other specific name, though, is what happens to ordering if we introduce other kinds of filters. If we have :adjust-colors and some hypothetical :adjust-foo, the order in which the adjustments are made becomes unclear.Again, why should we be bothered by hypothetical attributes? Let's bother about them when they become a reality, or at least come close.
We're not bothering with them now. We're making sure we won't *be* bothered by them later.
Also, can we please include "post-" in the name of the attribute? I want to emphasize that the filtering happens *after* face merging.Is it wise to expose implementation details in the interfaces?
Generally no, but I don't see how you can avoid it. Whether the filtering happens after face composition or face-by-face during attribute merging affects the values the filter function sees. It's part of the interface.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |