[debbugs-tracker] bug#29557: closed (lookup_basic_face: Should we add VERTICAL_BORDER_FACE_ID?)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 04 Dec 2017 17:45:26 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#29557: lookup_basic_face: Should we add 
VERTICAL_BORDER_FACE_ID?
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #29557,
regarding lookup_basic_face:  Should we add VERTICAL_BORDER_FACE_ID?
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
29557: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=29557
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> lookup_basic_face:  Should we add VERTICAL_BORDER_FACE_ID?
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 03 Dec 2017 17:59:34 -0800
>
>
>
>
> I had assumed that VERTICAL_BORDER_FACE_ID was a basic face (see dispextern.h 
> at line 1750).  However, it is not identified as such within lookup_basic_face. 
>  Is this something that should be added?  Without it, Emacs will throw an error 
> if someone tries to look it up and its not there.
>
> case VERTICAL_BORDER_FACE_ID: name = Qvertical_border; break;
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#29557: lookup_basic_face: Should we add VERTICAL_BORDER_FACE_ID?
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 04 Dec 2017 17:45:26 +0200
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 17:59:34 -0800
> > From: Keith David Bershatsky <address@hidden>
> > 
> > I had assumed that VERTICAL_BORDER_FACE_ID was a basic face (see dispextern.h 
> > at line 1750).  However, it is not identified as such within 
> > lookup_basic_face.  Is this something that should be added?  Without it, 
> > Emacs will throw an error if someone tries to look it up and its not there.
>
> Yes, it's an omission (and a very old one).
>
> Fixed on the master branch.  Thanks for reporting this.
>
>
> --- End Message ---