Re: secondary-selection face

[Miles Bader]

Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:
> I agree with you.
> 
> In Emacs 20, region has "gray" background and
> secondary-selection has "paleturquoise" background.  I think
> this color pair is much better than the current one.  I
> think, at least, it is better to swap the current colors of
> region and secondary-selection.  If we run Emacs 21 in
> reverse video, their colors are set more reasonably ("blue3"
> for region and "SkyBlue4" for secondary-selection, thus
> region has stronger appearance than secondary-selection).

[hey, I did that!]

I find the light-background region face almost invisible, whereas the
secondary-selection face is like a laser drilling through your eyeballs.

I might suggest just swapping the two; anyone else who normally uses a light
background (I don't) have any opinion?

> Another issue: color of highlight.  In reverse video,
> "darkolivegreen" is used for the face highlight, but with
> this color, a text is not that highlighting.  I think making
> it the same as what selected in normal video mode is better
> (i.e foreground "black", background "darkseagreen2").

I respectfully disagree; I used a dark-background and find that the
`darkolivegreen' background highlight face stands out quite well, and in
general, I prefer to have `background faces' like that not change the
foreground color as well.

Indeed, I tried out your suggestion, and find that combination *too*
noticable -- since the mouse often gets left just sitting around while
using the keyboard, the mouse (er, `highlight') face often gets
activated unintentionally, and I think it would be distracting to have
something overly bright.

Obviously this is a matter of opinion.

-Miles