On 6/8/05, Juri Linkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Should it use a different face > > I think yes. I'd personally set its both background and foreground > colors to "white" to display the vertical border as a solid > 1-character-wide white line.
Hmmm, it's an interesting idea in that it displays a "dashless" block by default, but still does the right thing if the terminal doesn't handle reverse-video for some reason (this used to be an issue in the '80s anyway :-). However I think doing that makes it harder to follow the user's customizations, since such a face couldn't just inherit from `mode-line' (it could inherit, but then would have to set the foreground to something explicit, which would often be wrong for customized mode-line faces). A slightly more complex alternative would be to do a "face displayable" test on the "vertical divider" face, and if it's displayable, use a space instead of "|" as the character... Then just inheriting directly from mode-line would work usually. > > (note that the actual face that ends up being used by this code is > > `mode-line-inactive', even though the code says MODE_LINE_FACE_ID; > > I'm not sure why this is)? > > I tried your patch, but instead of either `mode-line' or > `mode-line-inactive' it displays the vertical border in the > `fringe' face. But maybe this is good. We can reuse `fringe' > face for the vertical border because fringes are not available > on text-only terminals. It sounds like it's randomly choosing some other face than what was requested, which I think is not good even if it often works out...:-) I'll try to see what's going on... -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
