Daniel Pfeiffer wrote: > I don't know where that came from. This worked right when I did it, > then a change in the Emacs display engine (something about overriding > face attributes) seemed to have broken it, but before I found time to > analyse and report it, it was working right again.
I don't know what you mean by "working right again". It's broken for me in the current CVS. Oh, hang on, I see. It's another one of those wonderful things where I have to switch to "Gnumakefile". > This is correct, because ifdef et al. are not keywords for make! Others have commented on this, and FWIW I agree with them. > If you don't think the extra information font-lock gives to the eye > serves any useful purpose, don't use it. I'm not going to. I'm going to spend my time customizing make-mode to make it look how it used to, because I think the new defaults are so bad. >>The "-" before "rm" gets highlighted in font-lock-type-face. This is >>just silly. >> > It's definitely not part of the command, so it must look different! "must" is a bit strong here, don't you think? I've lived quite happily for years without this. Personally, I'm sticking with my "just silly" assessment! :) I think we want different things from font-lock. I want certain important features highlighted, you seem to want almost everything highlighted. Or else we disagree about the definition of "important". > I don't know why, but when I took over makefile mode, single > character variables were already highlighted differently from > parenthesized multiletter ones. I feel that to be wrong, but I > didn't care since in makepp every single character variable has a > long alias which I always use, so I don't see these. How wonderful for you. The rest of us should just sort ourselves out then, should we? > As for target face, that is an additional face for $@ because it's > not only a variable but also the target. That's why it's underlined, > so it can be combined with variable face, which has a foreground > colour and shell face, which has a background colour. Three different kinds of font-locking in the same place?! Net result: nausea. We're basically arguing over defaults, which seems to be generally fruitless. I just found the new ones so bad, I was motivated to say something. _______________________________________________ Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
