Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I like to use Kim's fringe "buffer-boundary indicator" bitmap feature > (set with the variable `indicate-buffer-boundaries'), but the default > bitmaps are rather unpleasant for several reasons -- > > (1) They're quite "heavy", so tend to draw the eye too much.
I don't have a problem with the "heavy" appearence, and they were designed to be similar to / consistent with the older bitmaps. > Could people try them out? Maybe these would be better defaults than > the existing bitmaps. I find your "slimmer" bitmaps are quite nice on their own, but I don't think they are an improvement. YMMV. > A related issue is the name of the bitmaps -- currently the names > reflect the physical appearance of the default bitmaps, but I think it > would be better if the names reflected their logical use. For instance, > a user might want to change the bitmap meaning "end of buffer" to be a > little "EOB" (shades of EDT... :-); in such an instance, not only is it > a bit wierd that it's called `bottom-left-angle', but there's a danger > that in the future some new feature will use the same bitmap (based on > its physical appearance); making the names "logical" would make it more > clear that this is bad. You are right that the current naming is not logical. Feel free to suggest better names, and change the code and docs accordingly. -- Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
