RE: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

I'm glad we agree about avoiding redundant defintion of semantically
similar faces.

Drew Adams writes:

 > How did this discussion start?  Yidong seemed to be saying
 > (possible misinterpretation, admittedly) that it would be good
 > to get rid of duplicate face definitions, by which he
 > apparently meant faces that have different names but the same
 > attribute values.

That seems unlikely to me; Emacs developers are generally good about
focusing on underlying semantics rather than surface similarities.  In
this case, if that were his intention he'd most likely have suggested
a naming convention that expresses face structure.  You might have
been well-advised to ask him if that is what he meant.

 > I have nothing against the examples of inheritance that you
 > argued for.  They are they same kinds of inheritance that I
 > argued for.

You did?  I'm sorry, I missed it.  The question I responded to didn't
make that distinction at all; it simply asked what is the rationale
for inheritance.

And others (cf. John Yates) do not seem to agree that semantic
redundancy is an issue of concern.  In a long thread it's easy to
become confused about who advocated what, and almost all the arguments
(including conflicting ones) become associated with the most verbose
posters.  If I misrepresented your position, I'm sorry.