[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A question about face-all-attributes
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: A question about face-all-attributes |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:25:05 +0300 |
> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:47:59 +0800
> From: Xue Fuqiao <xfq.free@gmail.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> (face-all-attributes 'default)
> >> =>
> >> ((:family . unspecified) (:foundry . unspecified) (:width .
> >> unspecified) (:height . unspecified) (:weight . unspecified) (:slant .
> >> unspecified) (:underline . unspecified) (:overline . unspecified)
> >> (:strike-through . unspecified) (:box . unspecified) (:inverse-video .
> >> unspecified) (:foreground . unspecified) ...)
> >>
> >> But:
> >>
> >> (describe-face 'default)
> >> =>
> >> Family: Ubuntu Mono
> >> Foundry: unknown
> >> Width: normal
> >> Height: 128
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Why are the two results different? I expected similar results from
> >> them.
> >
> > If the results were similar, the existence of describe-face would not
> > have been justified. It exists to show you what the default
> > attributes really will be.
>
> Thanks, Eli. But in (info "(elisp) Face Attributes"):
>
> An ‘unspecified’ attribute tells Emacs to refer instead to a parent
> face; or, failing that, to an underlying face. The ‘default’ face
> must specify all attributes.
>
> But all the attributes returned by face-all-attributes are
> ‘unspecified’, why?
Evidently, the manual is blatantly wrong. Unless this is an
unfortunate combination of using `unspecified' in the first sentence
and `specify' in the second, which does not necessarily mean "cannot
use `unspecified' in the 'default' face."