Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions

[Philipp Haselwarter]

"CY" == Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:

CY> Tim Cross <address@hidden> writes:

>> My only concern is how you define what to inherit from. For example,
>> in your suggestion of compiler warnings inheriting form
>>  font-lock-comment-face I immediately wondered why you would not
>> inherit from font-lock-warning face?

CY> font-lock-warning-face is already used for compilation errors, which
CY> are more serious than warnings.

Why not have a font-lock-warning face and a font-lock-error face?

I think some more reasonably named generic fonts to pick from would make
theming a lot easier.
As Drew said, faces need to make sense in their context.
I just spent some time picking sensible faces from the font-lock-*
palette for dired+, which by default defines its own static faces.
Most themes don't address these, resulting in readability issues.

I ended up with a nice looking setup, but the face names make no sense
*at all* in their context.
Some generic faces, that could guarantee some extend of contrast between
them would make consistency much easier.

-- 
Philipp Haselwarter