IMHO, `convenience' is too general; I, for one, would not think about
looking for these in that group. The following groups sound like
better candidates:
display, faces, font-lock-highlighting-faces,
whitespace, whitespace-faces
The last two seem good.
> From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:21:20 -0400
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> Similarly, what's the purpose of customizing `show-trailing-whitespace'
> and `trailing-whitespace' in the font-lock group?
>
> I will move them to `convenience'. Or is ther
Similarly, what's the purpose of customizing `show-trailing-whitespace'
and `trailing-whitespace' in the font-lock group?
I will move them to `convenience'. Or is there some other group
that would be better?
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-
Is there any reason why `Buffer-menu-buffer-face' is customized in the
`font-lock-highlighting-faces' group? The current choice (i) breaks the
convention that all faces in this group are prefixed with "font-lock-"
and (ii) falsely implies that this face is used by font-lock.
With
Is there any reason why `Buffer-menu-buffer-face' is customized in the
`font-lock-highlighting-faces' group? The current choice (i) breaks the
convention that all faces in this group are prefixed with "font-lock-"
and (ii) falsely implies that this face is used by font-lock. Since
the face is use
