Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2024 12:03:34 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 08 08:03:34 2024 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45490 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rtnin-0008P5-Lo for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:03:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41062) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1rtnik-0008Oq-77 for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:03:32 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1rtniW-0003Ya-Nv; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:03:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=mVBK+kuOV1CkDBKWjw7VmX7SI4OZMloZsK23glWxXxY=; b=p7AFVSdGcWnckA5v0iX9 6gym/3YRaeGO+dA55z8nQkEN0N0XF+zB5QG65T5yNk4x2GW8Gdjdr0PLLiz5BblnugUHmyNvkdtX0 G0n3eUqDk8eq7EnBKFvBBOAgT0kH/D31pPNm39T6hyKv+rt0NLUT0B+ooBFOlXKa7ds9KQvjIHlw1 1Zz5z/Q6UUBEPAQJPMZ3qkGB7aaIbd56Ogez3QO/assLOl6I6LgmZltTKYn/8LckbYye6lEzXQrjC BCS/QaNRU/P6/ouxA+MCp5pwe+07Q8Keuwnt5c4DjVNqphWZU5sk0vk07KfsLicZdZeKM8WbI9Ms9 KcAT3UxVLQMEyw==; Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 15:03:12 +0300 Message-Id: <86zfu4xdrz.fsf@HIDDEN> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <3c8e0d62-4a92-413f-9064-a06514948860@HIDDEN> (message from Mauro Aranda on Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300) Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN> <259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN> <87v85bqxfv.fsf@HIDDEN> <87msqnqh2z.fsf@HIDDEN> <871q7pw1l4.fsf@HIDDEN> <861q7i50f3.fsf@HIDDEN> <3c8e0d62-4a92-413f-9064-a06514948860@HIDDEN> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942 Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stephen.berman@HIDDEN X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 > Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org > From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> > > > Mauro, any further comments? > > Hi Eli and Stephen, > > Please forgive me, for the past 2 weeks I haven't been able to do any > computer stuff. If it's OK, please give me until the weekend so I > can catch up with this and the other 2 bug reports by Stephen. No need to apologize, we all have our Real Lives. Take your time, there's no urgency. Thanks in advance.
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2024 11:15:35 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 08 07:15:35 2024 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45380 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rtmyM-0001uW-BD for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 07:15:34 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:34401) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1rtmyE-0001tq-Dp for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 07:15:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net; s=s31663417; t=1712574912; x=1713179712; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN; bh=WkFy4PV/UHu2OcjDjOgwxEfoWs+DNIv1j8bcN5oruZw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Date; b=KQRh91XgMnEt/KUS8AJI8TsiRFcCytYbAJMV8eMRuAZI/loys06XzRwq6t5vk6YA KWKg3QhUiHtL6ZJl3vm06Ltn5nDeGu4pTSk6lD9pGMkcU0YMsODJ0AOfuousCsTcF M+48AS0P800U9C1K3zrP05E9zrsYioX7T/5XI1XNnvosPQB2F5MrgnPQYAZtWsaQm vxccFkfFOBul7H9r29UbPJuFx/NwUaEqDwgVxq7Oq9OwX5uAFnrv2J82sSXxQixs4 Vj/X7MsB4lxaHgehlidIA8lq1SESuQBjGjz/LVvkgNRXhr7nO+gxEtIWFXbAVbDQd POOvSGIzixOUE0ZgKg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from strobelfs ([94.134.94.159]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MatRZ-1sUEW311R5-00cNUK; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 13:15:12 +0200 From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels In-Reply-To: <3c8e0d62-4a92-413f-9064-a06514948860@HIDDEN> (Mauro Aranda's message of "Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300") References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN> <259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN> <87v85bqxfv.fsf@HIDDEN> <87msqnqh2z.fsf@HIDDEN> <871q7pw1l4.fsf@HIDDEN> <861q7i50f3.fsf@HIDDEN> <3c8e0d62-4a92-413f-9064-a06514948860@HIDDEN> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 13:15:11 +0200 Message-ID: <87il0s85s0.fsf@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Bb5Rpa78rwRZ5P8dGA5o3kVjrK/W5tzSNsW28U0fJfM+CYOteHv BdPxE6JyFzgMtt4HKWPtqvv+qVDlhmF2KB/Pj+hQktbQODbV4Unc5AMIJ7wQShaCAZB1e9T jYRkFAGdAJKnF3OkR76xFKj2jcQwsHr1oRloHmzMju4xZFprWa4yqw62E88MG8diGYrDJVe 6dP3lAurYDKAUtYvHj6lQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:n99ptWYbUbc=;0hRZ0SLYNs2D+NM4wtQvRhwgOD9 SVkjEgj+jymj7360B8ARrtxUXk162upyJBRMmVZ3aI0Q8x/CF/J3+f2HS0LqiDKGNj/B7U7Dx lwpwE70ZNBPb/20DLvy8EoaEafg+F+JUNs8U9O78rF9PWxMYKb5i95f+SaeAUxhUP4ZDkX8ey xAGfzO4CG4q5U6c05Mtn3eklO6WDYx3dDzxFrJsuzfx0opLdSvcpkgVTRX8t5P2DeZrkTZPFO ruadVIbUKod1KjNi5+CRyAFTDb0LZYQ+HeDDvmEUkFfKZEPw6L8pz+1I8yAshBtSSe4DwMVNZ JWVcuuuxOyd6ln3iOfOh3cRLrlnAyawXG50rpfVKKzaQSLP5ohbls4et+tCHLzKg1LMdr8xHg SsSNkDWIaYCT6CDO7fObY2+mmNHxzc4Fi4dx1GU18MFQtiTg93EKirvh1aqTf6AnpTt1G3vQB pRDYUIJnfRUBPI32mESPz/+px5HBEUS+DhwDOV/KgRZRwe/2byzBZSpmDThpiUpr/XZoxCp2Y SNj3TksnMS2Pzqza5BM3VH580yMSfZPVzd7h+tVDzB4HS5vFoXZdsPS30wCSgBF2znRWH5OXS 0S5LqaE+hTrCapbu8aRfvx32kLcouFrCmRnoxwbkd3T4yJRtZLnlSV13vExl8fCrUcIffFDPQ cedp8yhvb5onepik06OtM2tmZ8MzOUrScYzi27Vn4FLArqx/IoKFwNRvUdtrCbCRgAaTmL1hk 7VGZiwDQUILU+Zb97xjW+44RWsRfwtW2O+v42PYjOtwLEwrmm7s6x+VHaFpwPNRKovqNv/gFe rvA/h40S4MpJIptY6A1kjXEuzu5jm58s6UlbjpDO1b6lw= X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942 Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/) On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> wro= te: > On 6/4/24 06:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> >>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >>> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200 >>> >>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN= et> > wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishing by faces >>>> selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radio-button-choice >>>> widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the attached patch. >>>> Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more testing. >>> >>> Any comments on this patch for using a widget-unselected face?=C2=A0 I = have >>> been detained from further testing this past week, but can now resume. >> >> Mauro, any further comments? > > Hi Eli and Stephen, > > Please forgive me, for the past 2 weeks I haven't been able to do any > computer stuff.=C2=A0 If it's OK, please give me until the weekend so I > can catch up with this and the other 2 bug reports by Stephen. Please take your time; I'm in no rush. Steve Berman
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2024 10:59:05 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 08 06:59:05 2024 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45353 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rtmiP-0000du-CX for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 06:59:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]:43489) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <maurooaranda@HIDDEN>) id 1rtmiL-0000cd-CW for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 06:59:02 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-5cf2d73a183so3610957a12.1 for <69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 03:58:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712573928; x=1713178728; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CGLxFYIOAh6T2QOvRQDf3efINtf8ZDV08g2bILvMdcI=; b=UvG9dD1Yld+448aK6WKX0y7ptT20+38umvlE/fZCGGwIs37h75uMsPTtXZUa8H/tRQ zGyfRIiR09lZliTq/dfKZ2/rqL0U/457AiyAz3KEg53ahpjH2S4WgiSq3cRu1TXZehNx i1OTg8NZoyvpBZYlUFPd5UsLr5dPaSAuQtKQ4PsICt553avgPYXXH6MaG2cnDAaHyWbF 9ktRfNvUZA+i0mvRVjyBg5w0h4P3U/zJYu55EYo3rhiCLhHm8BcFbWx8d0RjPcs/Ri9b b6stWI/hHW16ej97ECijVGpXsPJdKe1eYDy45oPb2GFZUq3Qr/zKIglQamqLkMYYizGJ RlRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712573928; x=1713178728; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CGLxFYIOAh6T2QOvRQDf3efINtf8ZDV08g2bILvMdcI=; b=qJ+w3xx8sLdvBEAAs6esl7YqMPSiQ+z8nAMgxGeLdGUzlFyv6GdVVd+YCh8T5NMB8t 9t4pCA1PscDK6cPf9jwcXQ2HTNPPEGwsoZW3gvgIXYmW16NZKkADsr4mRWQAGtJapD4Q ykNF1WqwxVAmDSU6DMwJn2FCLSD9GYMclc7bpI10Rd4vWO/hiqktUPPZ/KShUVRam6Q/ ElGRVn5C54tPBQgnVU4SrujCH2n5e7n/+PoI7XAxOe9liDxGC3PEK5LzUHBj/p+2qpsU aIUR4Cpzj/DMEa2qsSmjnUvoY8dT6EokftKh+d4U1yS90rzRDV2CWMTiM1fj36nUOgEU TaiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxtXDxAklc/T47iAkSkt6EjEqdPnl12HM76/Jq6NSSAjXQndGLH F/8wUFcgwJbkHdp8svWGlo6tI0Zo/5C33qieWEv6DAYDTMT3s007 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGCGSvUmoBFZ1t1o9c1PkynKWoScfcyhVCOZmbDO2Df+bebWrHcwSnpFUCgOjbj7li9f7Deiw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3113:b0:2a2:1ec6:924 with SMTP id gc19-20020a17090b311300b002a21ec60924mr12369018pjb.3.1712573928033; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 03:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([181.228.33.6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k61-20020a17090a3ec300b0029bcf62e296sm6723389pjc.42.2024.04.08.03.58.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Apr 2024 03:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3c8e0d62-4a92-413f-9064-a06514948860@HIDDEN> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN> <259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN> <87v85bqxfv.fsf@HIDDEN> <87msqnqh2z.fsf@HIDDEN> <871q7pw1l4.fsf@HIDDEN> <861q7i50f3.fsf@HIDDEN> Content-Language: en-US From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <861q7i50f3.fsf@HIDDEN> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942 Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) On 6/4/24 06:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200 >> >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: >> >>> Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishing by faces >>> selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radio-button-choice >>> widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the attached patch. >>> Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more testing. >> >> Any comments on this patch for using a widget-unselected face? I have >> been detained from further testing this past week, but can now resume. > > Mauro, any further comments? Hi Eli and Stephen, Please forgive me, for the past 2 weeks I haven't been able to do any computer stuff. If it's OK, please give me until the weekend so I can catch up with this and the other 2 bug reports by Stephen.
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Apr 2024 09:02:40 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 06 05:02:40 2024 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38262 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rt1we-0007If-4W for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2024 05:02:40 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55760) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1rt1wb-0007Hp-Ox for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2024 05:02:38 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1rt1wQ-00006q-8h; Sat, 06 Apr 2024 05:02:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=jOQSKU1wzplvVd64MgUTqPVrOk04/9pwQQbBDcfZsUw=; b=PnzagseS5W0a E6oUQDoybjEb1DJaPLunJFLgZ/YClCg19nomvJfywWJTgWDZAL2/GjcXte63D9jYp39jPlAUtRJJO ObXeFWPEMv7UbXZhKpibxsBg0N7RcOZw4Ut9y0bQHy534PvKZn+r/YNDHLeg2qnoHZYLz8jyXR2hB d2q9sl+WGg0+m1bo+3SvicPehsM15+L/LSUoBT8tE0ZfMwnOwVa0eXVBWce5qghgyQ29NCTRgVDuG vfdDoKBs/J4N2RcySBXSE0OtQhWRkqNPd/atY5aL2f6nJPmJUJzyvZa6rqOBQUH4hH52Bnc5K6+Tu HA6atDTq37aJP+0VW+uQrQ==; Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 12:02:24 +0300 Message-Id: <861q7i50f3.fsf@HIDDEN> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <871q7pw1l4.fsf@HIDDEN> (message from Stephen Berman on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN> <259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN> <87v85bqxfv.fsf@HIDDEN> <87msqnqh2z.fsf@HIDDEN> <871q7pw1l4.fsf@HIDDEN> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942 Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, maurooaranda@HIDDEN X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200 > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: > > > Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishing by faces > > selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radio-button-choice > > widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the attached patch. > > Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more testing. > > Any comments on this patch for using a widget-unselected face? I have > been detained from further testing this past week, but can now resume. Mauro, any further comments?
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Apr 2024 15:21:44 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 01 11:21:44 2024 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51379 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rrJTg-0003hP-3A for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:21:44 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:50735) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1rrJTd-0003hC-Gh for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:21:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net; s=s31663417; t=1711984888; x=1712589688; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN; bh=YQlx6Uf8V985W36uVojYmLlLeLEza7DgVfv36gaWsGs=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Date; b=TTH1b9c/+BZMqAE4mAdUJiRmwdVFaKzXCwPiuXktLnYjWswrgMhTmYzTF1dZbwHe ggXImVcTqf47Mxq+C+TQFEv5BDjBfqFdAADUfZzsKZNRNowuFoPqQnEQpY6lq0RFa XK2Yx/oozlM0ywmgP4Ps13V7RaA+ZeMTqfzmgw3Ahpxsyuj6fXyhH1vqzOrrZH36Q 9jFOrPAcGhQwNBv98EhfvBmGPt0I99Kbl7R9Ef+rg4RbljoQqEh14IC/qV+w2sluQ WK65oM+htcpi5GHcGMUdaYv18+tyeHVK3Fkx/e8NK9sPdews1d/mG5+TWSjumkKpi 3TokSOIz81kiMFLtCQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from strobelfs ([94.134.95.171]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MwfWa-1sjXus0TQQ-00yBsb; Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:28 +0200 From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels In-Reply-To: <87msqnqh2z.fsf@HIDDEN> (Stephen Berman's message of "Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100") References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN> <259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN> <87v85bqxfv.fsf@HIDDEN> <87msqnqh2z.fsf@HIDDEN> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200 Message-ID: <871q7pw1l4.fsf@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:GAmG68+TLFrqMLWP7sLV2CPGSJdGQuB2y0VHiVGY4w66P1jR/Dw OK934scmRbsU8BFW4uXWc1sReeg3cKmoTdqeDtWiDIPnapb0dhixJfMUTw5px6HsHcEAp7c FT9MJlzhayKRlgQMNq2IO0gMRaoOiCUwcbj5u2XXz4aRW+cGlaXHF2FAMYae57uO9bbPuF4 wfIyS6dd/jSRRl8FHNN4w== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:aQP52Tb9sGg=;TJ3TeRgyeUdBIDPjlvozHnltpB5 k6hZIRhTso9fP93P0C07iWZrCbtTotX8W8fGwkyjlzM7SjWFPUh2FByRSMYVwXoYw3sNltYp5 k8tC9aMqlc+F0vmJePAmrPgSKL6KBCksrSME46KqzgB6SINGTPhw+/o4kU8OcXmJvYvhHgMfq SdQc8xGOBDp9qAI4wiW1GAyqg4X17Z1tou/qMZp9kk63+Yd2Tn+jg//BzIJ60r/j0ZNUuuVzy nI1wkdrYo2Q+IuNiJQO4NKt3HQQCUbiAq79bRsqMF/DFKdVLmy4wEW2nIRkDCComUCsMTuVIm /VREp3nSgWSUq0o82rlg/ROmKvBpIcXmFa0C6+SWRC+bVps1Kw0cI2FNeAdaMIMtUfid6KNHr rbD3hqpyyPkpZfn9kw9Zzno0EoG6u4S9AVjsrluc7ATWmBLDNWOHyMdlkHNHtd71OCALKihMg JYAKfJR5wRT1V38w/Ovo/FhZ8yAIvb3x7CoIGxH8PpEd+//S6+jL5mi4JvJg5z8QFc+OBiC91 NQDkX58mrtK2tgG42ikda6nPSCl7v4znydkZF//ZxMwpxnSwMm+GQtnWhFRkFPnfcooECiYJX C9YNSPCAnWytdQ06+Tw74IxjSYRqbFcVD5x2OJuFDqwjkkH4pbY6sCR+rASWnhaoTTXVAEyQh ObkjNwDhyvzMjMVTc3niqQv2uf87Op6Hv/UAcJh1R39ln7ivJv65DC69HpdVAVfe8aHeFfdip dzBib/OR26BNGtyv6zrr2ea0+JGNzJgpFFyzk0bZdh0E1D3t1LN2Jkel8CGRTa8D5VLPPJ7N/ pVrBEZI8a2yqANM85EAlQsD3Jyi91VxJn3XVZr5TafhwQ= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942 Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> = wrote: > On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:47:16 +0100 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN= > wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN>= wrote: >> >>> Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> writes: >>> >>>> In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button widgets >>>> and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons >>>> also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive face regardless >>>> of whether the associated radio buttons are inactive or active (except >>>> for the label of a radio button that has been pressed, which has the >>>> default face).=C2=A0 While the faulty fontification discussed in bug#6= 9941 >>>> appears to be a real bug, the widget-inactive face assigned to >>>> radio-button labels is apparently by design -- it was present in the >>>> initial commit of the widget library.=C2=A0 But this seems to me to ha= ve been >>>> a UX mistake, since it effectively ignores the semantics implied by the >>>> name widget-inactive.=C2=A0 I think a less surprising UI would be for = the >>>> labels to be fontified according to the widget's activation state: >>>> default face when the widget is active and widget-inactive face when >>>> it's inactive.=C2=A0 The attached patches provide two possible >>>> implementations of this UI. >>>> >>>> The first patch makes the change unconditionally, treating the current >>>> fontification as a UI/UX bug.=C2=A0 But it may be argued that this asp= ect of >>>> the widget UI should not be unconditionally changed, since it was >>>> apparently a deliberate design choice and there have been (AFAIK) no >>>> complaints about the semantic discrepancy till now.=C2=A0 The lack of >>>> complaint could be because the widget-inactive face inherits the shadow >>>> face, so it is not sharply different from the default face. But if one >>>> uses a very different face (as I did for illustrative purposes in >>>> bug#69941), the inconsistency is very obvious and (IMO) jarring. >>>> Nevertheless, to allow keeping the current fontification, the second >>>> patch conditionalizes the change from the current fontification by mea= ns >>>> of a user option (with the default being the current fontification). >>>> >>>> Is either of these changes acceptable? >>> >>> Thanks for working on this.=C2=A0 What about adding a widget-unselected= face? >>> I think that might be the intention with using the widget-inactive face >>> for unselected radio items. >> >> Yes, I agree that was likely the intention. But I think it's >> superfluous: after all, the distinction between selected (or chosen) and >> unselected items is already clear from the appearance of the radio >> buttons or, with checklist widgets, the check boxes (my patch neglected >> checklists, but it's straightforward to account for them: in >> widget-checklist-add-item the (widget-apply child :deactivate) sexp >> should be wrapped in an (unless widget-radio-face-from-state ...)). >> >> On the other hand, with an unselected face for the labels of the radio >> button or check boxes, if it defaults to inheriting the shadow face for >> unselected items, that corresponds to the current appearance with the >> widget-inactive face, and by setting the widget-unselected face to the >> default face, all labels would appear the same, which is what I want. >> So for me that's an acceptable alternative to my proposed defcustom. I >> tried to implement it, but I'm not very conversant with the workings of >> widget properties and how to apply faces depending on the widget's >> state, and I haven't managed to come up with a working implementation >> yet. I'll keep trying, but you or someone else might be able to do it >> sooner. >> >> (There is another argument, besides superfluousness, against using a >> separate face for unselected items: using multiple check boxes instead >> of a checklist, as e.g. recentf-edit-list does. With these the label of >> each check box is supplied by the :tag property, so it is not touched by >> the current handling in terms of the child widget's activation state. >> I'm not sure if using an unselected face here would be unproblematic or >> not.) > > Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishing by faces > selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radio-button-choice > widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the attached patch. > Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more testing. Any comments on this patch for using a widget-unselected face? I have been detained from further testing this past week, but can now resume. Steve Berman
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.
Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Mar 2024 00:41:33 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 24 20:41:32 2024
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47606 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1roYP6-0003sS-8g
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:41:32 -0400
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:35011)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1roYP1-0003s4-1W
for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:41:30 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net;
s=s31663417; t=1711327238; x=1711932038; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN;
bh=mUWGQ4Cx0uXJyCIdBAJ9Bw5F6Dk4KazOKktjUOkfL6A=;
h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Date;
b=ZFDDMPORtaUj0+m5ocnrh1+soTXmtKHV086J0AOQSH7WVcta2WObX2DMkw1OtSl7
eWcQRJdBD6olaeLZjJYgTbGLWeijKfpNuJSatdrLmBA/9ZSVUEvxU5J40A71o+vIB
xKHxxGL+tbHQPUZqVYQAJvMQ8JSiZkmo+c8tMQ14VV133q+C4G9X6qfya9QHGl2BW
cjpciatWyA8AGQcQwGhUvo7h4cuOjaAfkszpnmmhtmHLXz93Z86RqSEBHO6Wr9VKi
VFDHtyeDGfR9aWgqJlfU8K/cnMmrAFwGlFHp/hXmRd4nZqI04baM300hMOgwksvbn
XABDa3e1t1cXeXnGOQ==
X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a
Received: from strobelfs2 ([88.130.49.213]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105
[212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MFsUp-1s5vcA3qV5-00HMqr; Mon, 25
Mar 2024 01:40:38 +0100
From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>
To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels
In-Reply-To: <87v85bqxfv.fsf@HIDDEN> (Stephen Berman's message of "Sun, 24
Mar 2024 19:47:16 +0100")
References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN>
<259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN>
<87v85bqxfv.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100
Message-ID: <87msqnqh2z.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:xsQoWlO5upcD7+yGXG+kHXyq7L48wXnzbeNVP23oQyOw3SaDLxy
Pfd470wxwH9IdtEAs5NFykRT/89ocUgmrNIleI0kYMJSZ3qtF4W79Zd4qMpkNptBdd+jXmI
ALOXsQacaZCivQHhAETjmqAgyxrL8dvxXQiU4WSd3pjqj7b9TPTxGeeucA1y2Wb9wI069L+
h0yH0s9VdrYZrEKwBWqTA==
X-Spam-Flag: NO
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:G13i/vwtsK0=;QPaulkP+THhYTS+dtP8jLMW9MHR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X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:47:16 +0100 Stephen Berman wrote: >
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300 Mauro Aranda wrote: > >> Stephen Berman
writes: >> >>> In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button
widgets >>> and noted in passing that the [...]
Content analysis details: (2.8 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider (stephen.berman[at]gmx.net)
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
-0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
low trust [212.227.17.22 listed in list.dnswl.org]
3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS
[88.130.49.213 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
-0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
[212.227.17.22 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
-0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available.
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942
Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:47:16 +0100 Stephen Berman wrote: >
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300 Mauro Aranda wrote: > >> Stephen Berman
writes: >> >>> In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button
widgets >>> and noted in passing that the [...]
Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
[212.227.17.22 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS
[88.130.49.213 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
-0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
low trust
[212.227.17.22 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider (stephen.berman[at]gmx.net)
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
-0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available.
-1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
manager
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:47:16 +0100 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> =
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> =
wrote:
>
>> Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> writes:
>>
>>> In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button widgets
>>> and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons
>>> also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive face regardless
>>> of whether the associated radio buttons are inactive or active (except
>>> for the label of a radio button that has been pressed, which has the
>>> default face).=C2=A0 While the faulty fontification discussed in bug#69=
941
>>> appears to be a real bug, the widget-inactive face assigned to
>>> radio-button labels is apparently by design -- it was present in the
>>> initial commit of the widget library.=C2=A0 But this seems to me to hav=
e been
>>> a UX mistake, since it effectively ignores the semantics implied by the
>>> name widget-inactive.=C2=A0 I think a less surprising UI would be for t=
he
>>> labels to be fontified according to the widget's activation state:
>>> default face when the widget is active and widget-inactive face when
>>> it's inactive.=C2=A0 The attached patches provide two possible
>>> implementations of this UI.
>>>
>>> The first patch makes the change unconditionally, treating the current
>>> fontification as a UI/UX bug.=C2=A0 But it may be argued that this aspe=
ct of
>>> the widget UI should not be unconditionally changed, since it was
>>> apparently a deliberate design choice and there have been (AFAIK) no
>>> complaints about the semantic discrepancy till now.=C2=A0 The lack of
>>> complaint could be because the widget-inactive face inherits the shadow
>>> face, so it is not sharply different from the default face. But if one
>>> uses a very different face (as I did for illustrative purposes in
>>> bug#69941), the inconsistency is very obvious and (IMO) jarring.
>>> Nevertheless, to allow keeping the current fontification, the second
>>> patch conditionalizes the change from the current fontification by means
>>> of a user option (with the default being the current fontification).
>>>
>>> Is either of these changes acceptable?
>>
>> Thanks for working on this.=C2=A0 What about adding a widget-unselected =
face?
>> I think that might be the intention with using the widget-inactive face
>> for unselected radio items.
>
> Yes, I agree that was likely the intention. But I think it's
> superfluous: after all, the distinction between selected (or chosen) and
> unselected items is already clear from the appearance of the radio
> buttons or, with checklist widgets, the check boxes (my patch neglected
> checklists, but it's straightforward to account for them: in
> widget-checklist-add-item the (widget-apply child :deactivate) sexp
> should be wrapped in an (unless widget-radio-face-from-state ...)).
>
> On the other hand, with an unselected face for the labels of the radio
> button or check boxes, if it defaults to inheriting the shadow face for
> unselected items, that corresponds to the current appearance with the
> widget-inactive face, and by setting the widget-unselected face to the
> default face, all labels would appear the same, which is what I want.
> So for me that's an acceptable alternative to my proposed defcustom. I
> tried to implement it, but I'm not very conversant with the workings of
> widget properties and how to apply faces depending on the widget's
> state, and I haven't managed to come up with a working implementation
> yet. I'll keep trying, but you or someone else might be able to do it
> sooner.
>
> (There is another argument, besides superfluousness, against using a
> separate face for unselected items: using multiple check boxes instead
> of a checklist, as e.g. recentf-edit-list does. With these the label of
> each check box is supplied by the :tag property, so it is not touched by
> the current handling in terms of the child widget's activation state.
> I'm not sure if using an unselected face here would be unproblematic or
> not.)
Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishing by faces
selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radio-button-choice
widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the attached patch.
Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more testing.
Steve Berman
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/x-patch
Content-Disposition: attachment
Content-Description: selected and unselected widgets
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
diff --git a/lisp/wid-edit.el b/lisp/wid-edit.el
index 172da3db1e0..005aa918087 100644
=2D-- a/lisp/wid-edit.el
+++ b/lisp/wid-edit.el
@@ -555,6 +555,27 @@ widget-specify-active
(delete-overlay inactive)
(widget-put widget :inactive nil))))
+(defface widget-unselected
+ '((t :inherit shadow))
+ "Face used for unselected widgets."
+ :group 'widget-faces
+ :version "30.1")
+
+(defun widget-specify-unselected (widget from to)
+ "Fontify WIDGET as unselected (not chosen)."
+ (let ((overlay (make-overlay from to nil t nil)))
+ (overlay-put overlay 'face 'widget-unselected)
+ (overlay-put overlay 'evaporate t)
+ (overlay-put overlay 'priority 100)
+ (widget-put widget :unselected overlay)))
+
+(defun widget-specify-selected (widget)
+ "Remove fontification of WIDGET as unselected (not chosen)."
+ (let ((unselected (widget-get widget :unselected)))
+ (when unselected
+ (delete-overlay unselected)
+ (widget-put widget :unselected nil))))
+
;;; Widget Properties.
(defsubst widget-type (widget)
@@ -2415,10 +2436,16 @@ 'checkbox
(defun widget-checkbox-action (widget &optional event)
"Toggle checkbox, notify parent, and set active state of sibling."
(widget-toggle-action widget event)
- (let ((sibling (widget-get-sibling widget)))
+ (let* ((sibling (widget-get-sibling widget))
+ (from (widget-get sibling :from))
+ (to (widget-get sibling :to)))
(when sibling
- (widget-apply sibling
- (if (widget-value widget) :activate :deactivate))
+ (if (widget-value widget)
+ (progn
+ (widget-apply sibling :activate)
+ (widget-specify-selected sibling))
+ :deactivate
+ (widget-specify-unselected sibling from to))
(widget-clear-undo))))
;;; The `checklist' Widget.
@@ -2474,15 +2501,19 @@ widget-checklist-add-item
((eq escape ?v)
(setq child
(cond ((not chosen)
- (let ((child (widget-create-child widget type)))
- (widget-apply child :deactivate)
+ (let* ((child (widget-create-child widget type))
+ (from (widget-get child :from))
+ (to (widget-get child :to)))
+ (widget-specify-unselected child from to)
child))
((widget-inline-p type t)
(widget-create-child-value
- widget type (cdr chosen)))
+ widget type (cdr chosen))
+ (widget-specify-selected child))
(t
(widget-create-child-value
- widget type (car (cdr chosen)))))))
+ widget type (car (cdr chosen)))
+ (widget-specify-selected child)))))
(t
(error "Unknown escape `%c'" escape)))))
;; Update properties.
@@ -2653,8 +2684,11 @@ widget-radio-add-item
(widget-create-child-value
widget type value)
(widget-create-child widget type)))
- (unless chosen
- (widget-apply child :deactivate)))
+ (if chosen
+ (widget-specify-selected child)
+ (let ((from (widget-get child :from))
+ (to (widget-get child :to)))
+ (widget-specify-unselected child from to))))
(t
(error "Unknown escape `%c'" escape)))))
;; Update properties.
@@ -2704,14 +2738,17 @@ widget-radio-value-set
(dolist (current (widget-get widget :children))
(let* ((button (widget-get current :button))
(match (and (not found)
- (widget-apply current :match value))))
+ (widget-apply current :match value)))
+ (from (widget-get current :from))
+ (to (widget-get current :to)))
(widget-value-set button match)
(if match
- (progn
- (widget-value-set current value)
- (widget-apply current :activate))
- (widget-apply current :deactivate))
- (setq found (or found match))))))
+ (progn
+ (widget-value-set current value)
+ (widget-apply current :activate)
+ (widget-specify-selected current))
+ (widget-specify-unselected current from to))
+ (setq found (or found match))))))
(defun widget-radio-validate (widget)
;; Valid if we have made a valid choice.
@@ -2731,13 +2768,16 @@ widget-radio-action
(let ((buttons (widget-get widget :buttons)))
(when (memq child buttons)
(dolist (current (widget-get widget :children))
- (let* ((button (widget-get current :button)))
+ (let* ((button (widget-get current :button))
+ (from (widget-get current :from))
+ (to (widget-get current :to)))
(cond ((eq child button)
(widget-value-set button t)
- (widget-apply current :activate))
+ (widget-apply current :activate)
+ (widget-specify-selected current))
((widget-value button)
(widget-value-set button nil)
- (widget-apply current :deactivate)))))))
+ (widget-specify-unselected current from to)))))))
;; Pass notification to parent.
(widget-apply widget :notify child event))
--=-=-=--
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.
Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2024 18:48:10 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 24 14:48:10 2024
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47416 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1roSt7-00083S-Tp
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 14:48:10 -0400
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:58741)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1roSt4-00082r-1I
for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 14:48:08 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net;
s=s31663417; t=1711306038; x=1711910838; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN;
bh=5TEDdbj73C+pomSWs2Mv6dh2i2K8jTC+/3HfMhCW8rc=;
h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Date;
b=XJtsnatSJKgN5EoU/4jMU85Vvi9FoCOOud0k+JCTEbHkjbcalAvXwPV/sfN0i+xB
PC5RTcKiHGwGZ4DXVGF654dwF+5rSWPDb/y8k3hyFeNw3uXV28TmXqmxWIwoWujnC
F5p4+bKC69z4HtJinb5knvivey/dnUoMKa+M/ev/O6q95ITrCvbCFy4aBVbmBDQ4a
3Hle5SS8E0BXepgKyxQ17OJ0xwid8/9CKBvHKe0qYeCK4hV8/ofw8Y8LWUw0I5h6y
L0H+3Xq3R8ijqzejdlx7GNiz+ph+U5z6ozga6AkV8KEgz5biTnBfAhS/i1r+X5nll
pomtAWKo7F+8P+XMKg==
X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a
Received: from strobelfs2 ([88.130.49.213]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005
[212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MZCb5-1sJPsa3cC9-00V9Gd; Sun, 24
Mar 2024 19:47:17 +0100
From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>
To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels
In-Reply-To: <259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN> (Mauro Aranda's
message of "Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300")
References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN>
<259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:47:16 +0100
Message-ID: <87v85bqxfv.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:4DEkPcEP8laD90PqUfohNhIh2l9aiTGcokVHx6+4+ac9VmSv6/c
mveqKIoQLGl18MDGqUKWwHC/wBNnt4qaPDQ2/I2W+9JfBVFdXuN/ELw8Sbnlq7UFAeMvsSl
Z9/J3NepZ0zahm99PYTARCXzu2vza6WglRa/CtUOsDfSMWdVK7Eiiw9d0H5T65+0U7Cw70A
WeybQbZSJKQ9zpQEV14Ug==
X-Spam-Flag: NO
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:ft6JgEDrqoQ=;fG2lMgo9pZYoU4QX1cOAkWZQglB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X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: On Sat,
23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300 Mauro Aranda wrote: > Stephen
Berman writes: > >> In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of
radio-button
widgets >> and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio
buttons >> also have unexpected [...]
Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider (stephen.berman[at]gmx.net)
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[212.227.15.15 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
-0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
low trust [212.227.15.15 listed in list.dnswl.org]
3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS
[88.130.49.213 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
-0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available.
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942
Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300 Mauro Aranda wrote: > Stephen
Berman writes: > >> In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button
widgets >> and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio
buttons >> also have unexpected [...]
Content analysis details: (1.9 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[212.227.15.15 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS
[88.130.49.213 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
-0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
low trust
[212.227.15.15 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider (stephen.berman[at]gmx.net)
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
-0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available.
-1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
manager
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> wr=
ote:
> Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> writes:
>
>> In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button widgets
>> and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons
>> also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive face regardless
>> of whether the associated radio buttons are inactive or active (except
>> for the label of a radio button that has been pressed, which has the
>> default face).=C2=A0 While the faulty fontification discussed in bug#699=
41
>> appears to be a real bug, the widget-inactive face assigned to
>> radio-button labels is apparently by design -- it was present in the
>> initial commit of the widget library.=C2=A0 But this seems to me to have=
been
>> a UX mistake, since it effectively ignores the semantics implied by the
>> name widget-inactive.=C2=A0 I think a less surprising UI would be for the
>> labels to be fontified according to the widget's activation state:
>> default face when the widget is active and widget-inactive face when
>> it's inactive.=C2=A0 The attached patches provide two possible
>> implementations of this UI.
>>
>> The first patch makes the change unconditionally, treating the current
>> fontification as a UI/UX bug.=C2=A0 But it may be argued that this aspec=
t of
>> the widget UI should not be unconditionally changed, since it was
>> apparently a deliberate design choice and there have been (AFAIK) no
>> complaints about the semantic discrepancy till now.=C2=A0 The lack of
>> complaint could be because the widget-inactive face inherits the shadow
>> face, so it is not sharply different from the default face. But if one
>> uses a very different face (as I did for illustrative purposes in
>> bug#69941), the inconsistency is very obvious and (IMO) jarring.
>> Nevertheless, to allow keeping the current fontification, the second
>> patch conditionalizes the change from the current fontification by means
>> of a user option (with the default being the current fontification).
>>
>> Is either of these changes acceptable?
>
> Thanks for working on this.=C2=A0 What about adding a widget-unselected f=
ace?
> I think that might be the intention with using the widget-inactive face
> for unselected radio items.
Yes, I agree that was likely the intention. But I think it's
superfluous: after all, the distinction between selected (or chosen) and
unselected items is already clear from the appearance of the radio
buttons or, with checklist widgets, the check boxes (my patch neglected
checklists, but it's straightforward to account for them: in
widget-checklist-add-item the (widget-apply child :deactivate) sexp
should be wrapped in an (unless widget-radio-face-from-state ...)).
On the other hand, with an unselected face for the labels of the radio
button or check boxes, if it defaults to inheriting the shadow face for
unselected items, that corresponds to the current appearance with the
widget-inactive face, and by setting the widget-unselected face to the
default face, all labels would appear the same, which is what I want.
So for me that's an acceptable alternative to my proposed defcustom. I
tried to implement it, but I'm not very conversant with the workings of
widget properties and how to apply faces depending on the widget's
state, and I haven't managed to come up with a working implementation
yet. I'll keep trying, but you or someone else might be able to do it
sooner.
(There is another argument, besides superfluousness, against using a
separate face for unselected items: using multiple check boxes instead
of a checklist, as e.g. recentf-edit-list does. With these the label of
each check box is supplied by the :tag property, so it is not touched by
the current handling in terms of the child widget's activation state.
I'm not sure if using an unselected face here would be unproblematic or
not.)
Steve Berman
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Mar 2024 21:15:49 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Mar 23 17:15:49 2024 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54317 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ro8iS-0004LI-Rl for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:49 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f44.google.com ([209.85.166.44]:46384) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <maurooaranda@HIDDEN>) id 1ro8iQ-0004Ki-Qw for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:47 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f44.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-7cc133f431fso136667239f.1 for <69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:15:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1711228439; x=1711833239; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4FaY8nw0tNh3Ona/NyyCCs90Ete2HUXZtdpT5CB9ofY=; b=bwGgv4/ZeRbWop62XlNoQZeyy7qL/05lLgJQHI7CJqLSJyu2LA4qeX9PFoFW/9+9x+ N90W/p197O2qEmPWQZG+/RC8xp/7nEYyknsO85ndiwX5/dAw2rwV4VU/UrTfy188tgIq ZfU9MPLrsTpZdyRoscJf98l8LnenV1FcFA4FtZ59Q0q7IAT9mrhlNsldPiwseO02R3RV 1IW0SwjwhSH/Kg6+GVTitS4j9uf+p9nVq0VbtVEVaemgNodFKyOL6tAphr+1q36wYdyi j+4ZYcOHs4OdtkH6J4UlOXPOA3jPT5AcOGvtIcVb6ZeJL5PrfHREtPj6oB7V/qyuW5MD gflw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711228439; x=1711833239; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4FaY8nw0tNh3Ona/NyyCCs90Ete2HUXZtdpT5CB9ofY=; b=br6M/8t3LlpOVyB+ma6se2JfqgtvRnSwQv1MCOHv80LQF1kBkBBo0v/piwd//Q10ro 2Bs2JkvWJHaGk2BkGJrpvoGZbRhZM5LuPY5Nzcxc4mwrjkGDLY+E7w6AfN+kfW3UG01M NUmy4NOsrXvgzjj98GqxQsAaQKPucWD8LPp9f5MlMrfuK8xTo1chygeIsnmBYJcp6l96 7wpgUh8cGEbbl86Y9N86wflZHOijxYQWtF26QbKrNiwU0plEWBwg3faLrY+klYW8Rf2C uOXuK6Icj00Vmiy8b3HYYuV8jVYiHayW96QKILZRC0qhvw8g+nnooHOjJaeeW6hY6EH7 h3sw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw2sonY4oseQHZeM2V+IMEGCY5e1Z1k4ClBzZFsVwcEon98Ft69 dAym7wJ3wDVuczj8qAQuDSqWcsIU/YfmWE6PY8RKJhisJ9nFDUWYDaZt9nr/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEtUdcYzSRLJzcpLr95PkhpA40VK1Tq32dYVb5iWFqnj/DkD71N0yOCPSg5YXcDjtGpYqmsAw== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:888f:0:b0:6ea:73ac:12fe with SMTP id z15-20020aa7888f000000b006ea73ac12femr3463483pfe.2.1711227935401; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.234] ([181.228.33.6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id it13-20020a056a00458d00b006e6c10bdc16sm1764821pfb.85.2024.03.23.14.05.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <259fef2b-e0bf-46c4-8b42-5e26f906accb@HIDDEN> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:05:30 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN> From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942 Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> writes: > In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button widgets > and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons > also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive face regardless > of whether the associated radio buttons are inactive or active (except > for the label of a radio button that has been pressed, which has the > default face). While the faulty fontification discussed in bug#69941 > appears to be a real bug, the widget-inactive face assigned to > radio-button labels is apparently by design -- it was present in the > initial commit of the widget library. But this seems to me to have been > a UX mistake, since it effectively ignores the semantics implied by the > name widget-inactive. I think a less surprising UI would be for the > labels to be fontified according to the widget's activation state: > default face when the widget is active and widget-inactive face when > it's inactive. The attached patches provide two possible > implementations of this UI. > > The first patch makes the change unconditionally, treating the current > fontification as a UI/UX bug. But it may be argued that this aspect of > the widget UI should not be unconditionally changed, since it was > apparently a deliberate design choice and there have been (AFAIK) no > complaints about the semantic discrepancy till now. The lack of > complaint could be because the widget-inactive face inherits the shadow > face, so it is not sharply different from the default face. But if one > uses a very different face (as I did for illustrative purposes in > bug#69941), the inconsistency is very obvious and (IMO) jarring. > Nevertheless, to allow keeping the current fontification, the second > patch conditionalizes the change from the current fontification by means > of a user option (with the default being the current fontification). > > Is either of these changes acceptable? Thanks for working on this. What about adding a widget-unselected face? I think that might be the intention with using the widget-inactive face for unselected radio items.
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Mar 2024 15:34:51 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 22 11:34:51 2024 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60880 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rngux-0003EL-F5 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:34:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45242) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1rnguv-0003E1-Mw for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:34:50 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1rnguB-0007Nc-Li; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:34:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=iovPmN0JMpynG6QQsIsayFc6NnSeFKwXetgBltEKb6s=; b=bvE2UERCF2DO /KlZUrSPHT8wy+UEsK4xiYANd+dniqOEGY35g281eFfwj6a6UpqihI8K/1D64lyVftry0/NbjC6mR T5YfR5ks6DOEyU9X5EFrOELWASbzETN5p6juqFjVMY4YE91xrEzNudLtNBL9xWKqWNhDFHbcHEXQD mq75NaNTKFI5PEtgljdaIn7ny40CwJmmo/eX6HRaHv8KG5R1iiPNp2vcvESAiRX+TdpTB2JP2AS0n gbW3FwHC0s61GBBcYCQ5EX7vEmR8RpX5lwbIxBA+gKuESs+wMU5oozQYI9fP54u9GcVUe17/7H040 +Z8eLNPBikNHcTVwl+yYgw==; Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:33:44 +0200 Message-Id: <864jcy1dt3.fsf@HIDDEN> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>, Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> (bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN) Subject: Re: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 69942 Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:04:15 +0100 > From: Stephen Berman via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, > the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN> > > In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button widgets > and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons > also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive face regardless > of whether the associated radio buttons are inactive or active (except > for the label of a radio button that has been pressed, which has the > default face). While the faulty fontification discussed in bug#69941 > appears to be a real bug, the widget-inactive face assigned to > radio-button labels is apparently by design -- it was present in the > initial commit of the widget library. But this seems to me to have been > a UX mistake, since it effectively ignores the semantics implied by the > name widget-inactive. I think a less surprising UI would be for the > labels to be fontified according to the widget's activation state: > default face when the widget is active and widget-inactive face when > it's inactive. The attached patches provide two possible > implementations of this UI. > > The first patch makes the change unconditionally, treating the current > fontification as a UI/UX bug. But it may be argued that this aspect of > the widget UI should not be unconditionally changed, since it was > apparently a deliberate design choice and there have been (AFAIK) no > complaints about the semantic discrepancy till now. The lack of > complaint could be because the widget-inactive face inherits the shadow > face, so it is not sharply different from the default face. But if one > uses a very different face (as I did for illustrative purposes in > bug#69941), the inconsistency is very obvious and (IMO) jarring. > Nevertheless, to allow keeping the current fontification, the second > patch conditionalizes the change from the current fontification by means > of a user option (with the default being the current fontification). > > Is either of these changes acceptable? Adding Mauro to the discussion.
bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Mar 2024 15:05:09 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 22 11:05:09 2024
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58876 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1rngSC-0001p8-FW
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:05:09 -0400
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:51264)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1rngS9-0001ow-TY
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:05:07 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>)
id 1rngRS-0004c6-Ap
for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:04:23 -0400
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22])
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>)
id 1rngRO-00087s-IM
for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:04:21 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net;
s=s31663417; t=1711119856; x=1711724656; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN;
bh=6JRzVRebb0xnmQvG/e7lz/3MPpuJfWU517roLlA7UVk=;
h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Subject:Date;
b=dj0gsMHPRWIItt/h/IfyNu2DrieS1ewhqpUj/X1DdibT5l5hRYxybQ1GpZpkI2G0
JQkYxJ9h7mNig7CTbPBW0CdHaz223JEq+oqYDpbUW5toSi/d60lNAUcDJ3bEwYXEU
aQxc1vaIkbPd8ghM/8vp3ZNTzMOkBcAPFbo2asIX/zYDthNZixkmiEbqd0WUufJYE
DTsjz40B9txPpJcPB9jWGCJ0798tfgdRq3iANaDTpzXi22w7v8Id59+bgKw/qvp2m
gc3FsvPCj9x0VR1Djd+MDBHRmAR8Cnqp8h7jfDnMsVzYSDqpnOpmGL6V8iFzO1rrf
W6snrRrbbVuUmGlTPw==
X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a
Received: from strobelfs2 ([88.130.50.228]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104
[212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N79u8-1qgK3o12b6-017YGk for
<bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:04:16 +0100
From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>
To: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Subject: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels
X-Debbugs-Cc:
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:04:15 +0100
Message-ID: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:47XnpaLQH+7xT6DpggefXx7Mo6KQ9va0Ryou77hpOvQHvf6iQzd
C8IQHuwUSPk1tgTyG5oIS43S145q/KY9PqRqirxKS+1lkZTLCFEQaL3HOgJJcAwG8jFPkFk
H2jkru2k3k1HO5y14b2arRwjfByWxeSEjHwb8j9NOSqDjfEEtpfhgMYRyZDZ/NTFSodogG8
KY3cKIRVeVF3ZkAudEcCA==
X-Spam-Flag: NO
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:/YwoSLAy+qM=;zZihI+4H2N9Md/t0r8zxTttSBAy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Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.22;
envelope-from=stephen.berman@HIDDEN; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-Spam_score_int: 5
X-Spam_score: 0.5
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: (0.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of
radio-button
widgets and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons
also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive fa [...]
Content analysis details: (4.2 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust [209.51.188.17 listed in list.dnswl.org]
3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS
[88.130.50.228 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail)
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider (stephen.berman[at]gmx.net)
-0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available.
2.0 SPOOFED_FREEMAIL No description available.
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button
widgets and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons
also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive fa [...]
Content analysis details: (1.2 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS
[88.130.50.228 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
-2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
[209.51.188.17 listed in list.dnswl.org]
1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail)
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider (stephen.berman[at]gmx.net)
-0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available.
-1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
manager
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button widgets
and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons
also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive face regardless
of whether the associated radio buttons are inactive or active (except
for the label of a radio button that has been pressed, which has the
default face). While the faulty fontification discussed in bug#69941
appears to be a real bug, the widget-inactive face assigned to
radio-button labels is apparently by design -- it was present in the
initial commit of the widget library. But this seems to me to have been
a UX mistake, since it effectively ignores the semantics implied by the
name widget-inactive. I think a less surprising UI would be for the
labels to be fontified according to the widget's activation state:
default face when the widget is active and widget-inactive face when
it's inactive. The attached patches provide two possible
implementations of this UI.
The first patch makes the change unconditionally, treating the current
fontification as a UI/UX bug. But it may be argued that this aspect of
the widget UI should not be unconditionally changed, since it was
apparently a deliberate design choice and there have been (AFAIK) no
complaints about the semantic discrepancy till now. The lack of
complaint could be because the widget-inactive face inherits the shadow
face, so it is not sharply different from the default face. But if one
uses a very different face (as I did for illustrative purposes in
bug#69941), the inconsistency is very obvious and (IMO) jarring.
Nevertheless, to allow keeping the current fontification, the second
patch conditionalizes the change from the current fontification by means
of a user option (with the default being the current fontification).
Is either of these changes acceptable?
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/x-patch
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=widget-radio-nocust.diff
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
diff --git a/lisp/wid-edit.el b/lisp/wid-edit.el
index 172da3db1e0..21848849ba5 100644
=2D-- a/lisp/wid-edit.el
+++ b/lisp/wid-edit.el
@@ -2652,9 +2652,7 @@ widget-radio-add-item
(setq child (if chosen
(widget-create-child-value
widget type value)
- (widget-create-child widget type)))
- (unless chosen
- (widget-apply child :deactivate)))
+ (widget-create-child widget type))))
(t
(error "Unknown escape `%c'" escape)))))
;; Update properties.
@@ -2706,12 +2704,8 @@ widget-radio-value-set
(match (and (not found)
(widget-apply current :match value))))
(widget-value-set button match)
- (if match
- (progn
- (widget-value-set current value)
- (widget-apply current :activate))
- (widget-apply current :deactivate))
- (setq found (or found match))))))
+ (when match (widget-value-set current value))
+ (setq found (or found match))))))
(defun widget-radio-validate (widget)
;; Valid if we have made a valid choice.
@@ -2733,11 +2727,9 @@ widget-radio-action
(dolist (current (widget-get widget :children))
(let* ((button (widget-get current :button)))
(cond ((eq child button)
- (widget-value-set button t)
- (widget-apply current :activate))
+ (widget-value-set button t))
((widget-value button)
- (widget-value-set button nil)
- (widget-apply current :deactivate)))))))
+ (widget-value-set button nil)))))))
;; Pass notification to parent.
(widget-apply widget :notify child event))
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/x-patch
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=widget-radio-cust.diff
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
diff --git a/lisp/wid-edit.el b/lisp/wid-edit.el
index 172da3db1e0..616286a817d 100644
=2D-- a/lisp/wid-edit.el
+++ b/lisp/wid-edit.el
@@ -2591,6 +2591,16 @@ 'radio-button
:off "( )"
:off-glyph "radio")
+(defcustom widget-radio-face-from-state nil
+ "How to fontify the label of a radio button.
+If non-nil, use `widget-inactive' face for the label if the
+radio-button-choice widget is inactive and default face if it is active.
+If nil, use the default face for the label only if the associated radio
+button is pressed, otherwise use `widget-inactive' face."
+ :type 'boolean
+ :group 'widget-faces
+ :version "30.1")
+
(defun widget-radio-button-notify (widget _child &optional event)
;; Tell daddy.
(widget-apply (widget-get widget :parent) :action widget event))
@@ -2653,8 +2663,9 @@ widget-radio-add-item
(widget-create-child-value
widget type value)
(widget-create-child widget type)))
- (unless chosen
- (widget-apply child :deactivate)))
+ (unless widget-radio-face-from-state
+ (unless chosen
+ (widget-apply child :deactivate))))
(t
(error "Unknown escape `%c'" escape)))))
;; Update properties.
@@ -2706,12 +2717,14 @@ widget-radio-value-set
(match (and (not found)
(widget-apply current :match value))))
(widget-value-set button match)
- (if match
- (progn
- (widget-value-set current value)
- (widget-apply current :activate))
- (widget-apply current :deactivate))
- (setq found (or found match))))))
+ (if widget-radio-face-from-state
+ (when match (widget-value-set current value))
+ (if match
+ (progn
+ (widget-value-set current value)
+ (widget-apply current :activate))
+ (widget-apply current :deactivate)))
+ (setq found (or found match))))))
(defun widget-radio-validate (widget)
;; Valid if we have made a valid choice.
@@ -2734,10 +2747,12 @@ widget-radio-action
(let* ((button (widget-get current :button)))
(cond ((eq child button)
(widget-value-set button t)
- (widget-apply current :activate))
+ (unless widget-radio-face-from-state
+ (widget-apply current :activate)))
((widget-value button)
(widget-value-set button nil)
- (widget-apply current :deactivate)))))))
+ (unless widget-radio-face-from-state
+ (widget-apply current :deactivate))))))))
;; Pass notification to parent.
(widget-apply widget :notify child event))
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
In GNU Emacs 30.0.50 (build 3, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version
3.24.38, cairo version 1.18.0) of 2024-03-22 built on strobelfs2
Repository revision: c1530a2e4973005633ebe00d447f1f3aa1200301
Repository branch: master
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12101009
System Description: Linux From Scratch r12.0-112
Configured using:
'configure -C --with-xwidgets 'CFLAGS=-Og -g3'
PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/qt5/lib/pkgconfig'
Configured features:
ACL CAIRO DBUS FREETYPE GIF GLIB GMP GNUTLS GPM GSETTINGS HARFBUZZ JPEG
JSON LCMS2 LIBSYSTEMD LIBXML2 MODULES NATIVE_COMP NOTIFY INOTIFY PDUMPER
PNG RSVG SECCOMP SOUND SQLITE3 THREADS TIFF TOOLKIT_SCROLL_BARS
TREE_SITTER WEBP X11 XDBE XIM XINPUT2 XPM XWIDGETS GTK3 ZLIB
--=-=-=--
Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>:bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN.
Full text available.bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:bug#69942; Package emacs.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.