Re: Native line numbers, final testing

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Alex <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:22:51 -0600
> 
> > It should be sensible, I agree.  But "sensible" doesn't necessarily
> > mean identical to the default face's font.
> 
> Sure, but I maintain in this case that it does mean identical to the
> default face's font.

I don't understand why, and I don't think I agree.

> It ensures, usually, proper size and a non-clashing style.

No one said these are necessarily our goals.  Not everything shown on
the initial frame uses the same font, so why should line numbers be
required to?

> If someone customizes their default face, then they could customize
> the line-number face similarly.

That's harsh on users, and exactly the reason why I made this change.
It might be a mistake, but I'd like to hear more opinions before I
make up my mind.

> Everyone else shouldn't have to do any customization.

They (and you) don't need to.  I only mentioned customization because
you didn't like the default.  Good defaults are supposed to be good
for many users, but they aren't required to satisfy everyone, as long
as things are customizable.

> > How are fixed-pitch* different from any other face that doesn't
> > inherit from default?
> 
> Going into this discussion, I figured that fixed-pitch* would be exactly
> like default, except enforcing, well, fixed-pitch; similarly for
> variable-pitch.

But that's obviously not the intent, as the code shows and the
comments explain.

> (insert (propertize "hello there!" 'face 'fixed-pitch))
> 
> This text increases along with the default face with "C-x +". Why does
> the same not apply to the line-number face?

I don't know.  Feel free to investigate and publish the findings.