On 6/25/05, Luc Teirlinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the result is solid enough, maybe it would be safe to rename the > `font-lock-...-face' faces as well. [I didn't do so before because > they are far more widely used than other faces.] > > I believe that the idea here is that they are variables and faces with > the same name. So I believe that the font-lock stuff is probably > better left alone.
"The idea is"? Is that supposed to be justification? [I could as easily write "the idea is to have names that end with "-fuullluu-oiusdf".] The current names cause a fair amount of confusion, as authors rarely seem clear on the difference, and tend to sort of randomly mix face names and face variables in font-lock specs. It would be better to make the difference clear, and merely documenting is probably not going to be so effective unless there's a tangible difference. The only reason I can see for retaining the old names is if backward-compatibility isn't solid enough -- and then it's better to try first to make compatibility better. -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. _______________________________________________ Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
