GNU bug report logs - #62370
28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from font-lock-X-face faces

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 62370 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 62370 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:41:07 +1100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

sieve-mode as at Emacs 28.1 defines its colors ab initio.
This means they have to be themed by hand.
I think sieve-mode should inherit from font-lock-*-face,
as most other things do.

Here is a quick-and-dirty version I knocked out for personal use:

    (custom-set-faces
     '(sieve-control-commands ((t :inherit font-lock-builtin-face)))
     '(sieve-action-commands  ((t :inherit font-lock-function-name-face)))
     '(sieve-test-commands    ((t :inherit font-lock-variable-name-face)))
     '(sieve-tagged-arguments ((t :inherit font-lock-type-face))))

[Screenshot from 2023-03-22 16-23-48.png (image/png, attachment)]

[Screenshot from 2023-03-22 16-40-15.png (image/png, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1;
 sieve-mode: faces should inherit from font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:49:50 +0200

> From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:41:07 +1100
> 
> sieve-mode as at Emacs 28.1 defines its colors ab initio.

And there's nothing wrong with that, IMO.  Quite a few other modes do
the same.

> This means they have to be themed by hand.

Some modes already do.

> I think sieve-mode should inherit from font-lock-*-face,
> as most other things do.

I'm not sure I agree.  These faces are with us for a long time, so
changing their defaults now brings disadvantages: it could cause
someone dislike the result.

Does anyone else have an opinion about this?

Message #11 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 20:10:37 +0000

>> I think sieve-mode should inherit from font-lock-*-face, as most other 
>> things do.
>
> I'm not sure I agree.  These faces are with us for a long time, so 
> changing their defaults now brings disadvantages: it could cause someone 
> dislike the result.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion about this?
>

I agree with both Trent and you.

Modes should inherit from font-lock-*-faces, unless there's a good reason 
not to inherit from these faces.  Otherwise customizing the visual 
appearance of Emacs is a nightmare.  This is, by the way, made clear in 
(elisp)Major Mode Conventions: "Each face that the mode defines should, if 
possible, inherit from an existing Emacs face.  See Basic Faces, and see 
Faces for Font Lock."

But the sieve-* faces have existed for twenty years, so it's now too late 
to change them.

Message #14 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 14:22:45 -0700

On 3/22/2023 1:10 PM, Gregory Heytings wrote:
> But the sieve-* faces have existed for twenty years, so it's now too 
> late to change them.

I think it might actually be ok to change this: the face attributes for 
each of the 'sieve-*' faces closely correspond to one of the 
'font-lock-*-face' faces. They're not *identical*, but the differences 
are very slight.

The mapping is:

  sieve-control-commands -> font-lock-builtin-face
  sieve-action-commands  -> font-lock-function-name-face
  sieve-test-commands    -> font-lock-constant-face
  sieve-tagged-arguments -> font-lock-keyword-face

(Note that this is a different mapping from Trent's proposal.)

If we mapped the 'sieve-*' faces like that, I doubt anyone using the 
default theme would notice. Likewise, anyone using a theme that 
customizes the 'sieve-*' faces wouldn't notice, since they're already 
explicitly-themed.

The only users who would see an impact would be those using non-default 
themes that *didn't* have definitions for 'sieve-*' faces, and they'll 
arguably have improved visuals: with the change, 'sieve-mode' will look 
consistently-themed with the rest of Emacs.

Since there's such a close correspondence to the font-lock faces, I'd 
(weakly) advocate for inheriting from them.

Message #17 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:05:24 +1100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed 22 Mar 2023 14:22:45 -0700, Jim Porter wrote:
> On 3/22/2023 1:10 PM, Gregory Heytings wrote:
> > But the sieve-* faces have existed for twenty years, so it's now too
> > late to change them.
>
> I think it might actually be ok to change this: the face attributes for each
> of the 'sieve-*' faces closely correspond to one of the 'font-lock-*-face'
> faces. They're not *identical*, but the differences are very slight.
>
> The mapping is:
>
>   sieve-control-commands -> font-lock-builtin-face
>   sieve-action-commands  -> font-lock-function-name-face
>   sieve-test-commands    -> font-lock-constant-face
>   sieve-tagged-arguments -> font-lock-keyword-face
>
> (Note that this is a different mapping from Trent's proposal.)

For the record, I'm fine with this mapping.
I only just started using sieve seriously yesterday, so
my initial mapping was a wild-ass guess.

> If we mapped the 'sieve-*' faces like that, I doubt anyone using the default
> theme would notice. Likewise, anyone using a theme that customizes the
> 'sieve-*' faces wouldn't notice, since they're already explicitly-themed.

I agree.

> The only users who would see an impact would be those using non-default
> themes that *didn't* have definitions for 'sieve-*' faces, and they'll
> arguably have improved visuals: with the change, 'sieve-mode' will look
> consistently-themed with the rest of Emacs.

I agree.

I don't think "I opened foo.sieve in Emacs 20 twenty years ago, and
now I opened foo.sieve in Emacs 30 today, and the colors aren't identical, and now I'm mad"
is a good argument for never changing the defaults.

Emacs changes the defaults like that ALL THE TIME.
If they piss me off, I just patch back in the old behaviour and forget about it.
Choice examples:

  ;; Colour comment bodies in console mode.  I tried to get this changed upstream,
  ;; but RMS decreed that it was a feature as (apparently) red is difficult to
  ;; read on eight-colour terminals.  Hopefully a circular dependency is OK...
  ;; FFS, RMS, just configure your terminal, e.g. printf '\033]P1CC0000\033]P9EF2929'
  (eval-after-load "font-lock"
    '(if (< emacs-major-version 24)
         (put 'font-lock-comment-face 'face-alias 'font-lock-comment-delimiter-face)
       ;; UPDATE: it's not OK in Emacs 24.  For now, just assume an 8-color tty.
       (set-face-attribute 'font-lock-comment-face nil :foreground "red")))

  ;; Undo stupid feature where ^M means ^J and ^J means ^M.
  ;; Fixes copy-paste between terminals without bracketed paste mode (i.e. ALL of them).
  ;; http://emacsredux.com/blog/2014/01/19/a-peek-at-emacs-24-dot-4-auto-indentation-by-default/
  (when (fboundp 'electric-indent-mode)
    (electric-indent-mode -1))

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
Cc: jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 08:58:09 +0200

> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:05:24 +1100
> From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
> 	62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> I don't think "I opened foo.sieve in Emacs 20 twenty years ago, and
> now I opened foo.sieve in Emacs 30 today, and the colors aren't identical, and now I'm mad"
> is a good argument for never changing the defaults.

From my POV, it _is_ a good argument.  Especially when the defaults
change in a feature that is easily customizable, and so basically you
are asking to impose your preferences, which are easily catered to by
your local customizations, on everyone else.

> Emacs changes the defaults like that ALL THE TIME.

That's not true.  We do that rarely and sparingly, precisely for the
reasons you consider unimportant.

> If they piss me off, I just patch back in the old behaviour and forget about it.

You can do the same with the current defaults, so why are you asking
us to change them?

Message #23 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 18:03:47 +1100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu 23 Mar 2023 08:58:09 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:05:24 +1100
> > From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
> > Cc: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
> >     62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > I don't think "I opened foo.sieve in Emacs 20 twenty years ago, and
> > now I opened foo.sieve in Emacs 30 today, and the colors aren't identical, and now I'm mad"
> > is a good argument for never changing the defaults.
>
> From my POV, it _is_ a good argument.  Especially when the defaults
> change in a feature that is easily customizable, and so basically you
> are asking to impose your preferences, which are easily catered to by
> your local customizations, on everyone else.
>
> > Emacs changes the defaults like that ALL THE TIME.
>
> That's not true.  We do that rarely and sparingly, precisely for the
> reasons you consider unimportant.
>
> > If they piss me off, I just patch back in the old behaviour and forget about it.
>
> You can do the same with the current defaults, so why are you asking
> us to change them?

I thought I was asking "make sieve-mode faces follow best current practice" (i.e. inherit from font-lock where appropriate), not
"change sieve-mode faces from Tim's arbitrary preference to Trent's arbitrary preference".

But I am not really interested in arguing this further, so let's just WONTFIX this ticket.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #28 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
Cc: jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 09:25:25 +0200

> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 18:03:47 +1100
> From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> But I am not really interested in arguing this further, so let's just WONTFIX this ticket.

I didn't yet make up my mind, I'm still interested in hearing
additional arguments for and against the change, provided that they
don't re-iterate what was already said here.

Message #31 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
Cc: gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 09:11:57 -0700

On 3/22/2023 11:58 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:05:24 +1100
>> From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
>> 	62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>
>> I don't think "I opened foo.sieve in Emacs 20 twenty years ago, and
>> now I opened foo.sieve in Emacs 30 today, and the colors aren't identical, and now I'm mad"
>> is a good argument for never changing the defaults.
> 
>  From my POV, it _is_ a good argument.  Especially when the defaults
> change in a feature that is easily customizable, and so basically you
> are asking to impose your preferences, which are easily catered to by
> your local customizations, on everyone else.

I agree that we shouldn't be changing defaults arbitrarily, but as I 
found when looking at the face definitions, we could make this change in 
a way where it just simplifies the job for theme authors but doesn't 
cause a noticeable change in most cases.

Does that sound ok? If not, then I think we can just close this.

Message #34 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>,
 Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 03:30:45 -0700

Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com> writes:

> I agree that we shouldn't be changing defaults arbitrarily, but as I found when
> looking at the face definitions, we could make this change in a way where it
> just simplifies the job for theme authors but doesn't cause a noticeable change
> in most cases.
>
> Does that sound ok? If not, then I think we can just close this.

I think the solution that you proposed makes sense: it wouldn't break
anything, and it would make sieve-mode look better for many users.

ISTR that Philip was planning to look into improving our face
definitions, so I'm putting him in Cc in case he has any comments.

Message #39 received at 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>, Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 11:04:25 +0000

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I agree that we shouldn't be changing defaults arbitrarily, but as I found when
>> looking at the face definitions, we could make this change in a way where it
>> just simplifies the job for theme authors but doesn't cause a noticeable change
>> in most cases.
>>
>> Does that sound ok? If not, then I think we can just close this.
>
> I think the solution that you proposed makes sense: it wouldn't break
> anything, and it would make sieve-mode look better for many users.
>
> ISTR that Philip was planning to look into improving our face
> definitions, so I'm putting him in Cc in case he has any comments.

It is true that I have been looking into proposing more "semantic"
faces for faces.el, but I don't have any comments on this proposal.

Message #44 received at 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>,
 Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, gregory <at> heytings.org,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 21:43:25 -0700

On 9/3/2023 3:30 AM, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I agree that we shouldn't be changing defaults arbitrarily, but as I found when
>> looking at the face definitions, we could make this change in a way where it
>> just simplifies the job for theme authors but doesn't cause a noticeable change
>> in most cases.
>>
>> Does that sound ok? If not, then I think we can just close this.
> 
> I think the solution that you proposed makes sense: it wouldn't break
> anything, and it would make sieve-mode look better for many users.

I tried my proposal out just to be safe and it does actually change the 
appearance in a few cases with the default theme, but I think it's for 
the better:

1. If you're using a color TTY, sieve-mode picks some very simple colors 
("blue", "magenta", and "cyan"). Normally that's fine, since it uses 
whatever your terminal's color palette uses for those basic ANSI colors. 
However, if you have a terminal that can display 24-bit colors, sieve's 
choices become really bad: it's no longer "the blue you've configured 
for your terminal theme that looks nice", but just regular blue 
(#0000ee), which on my terminal is almost unreadable.

2. The font-lock faces also feature slight tweaks to their colors when 
your system supports at least 88 colors. This is only really noticeable 
if you look closely though.

As such, I've pushed this to the master branch as f08684ab39d. Closing 
this now. (Of course, if this *does* cause some problems, we can revisit 
this.)

Message #47 received at 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: trentbuck <at> gmail.com, philipk <at> posteo.net, gregory <at> heytings.org,
 stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 15:01:51 +0300

> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 21:43:25 -0700
> Cc: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>,
>  Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
>  gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
> 
> As such, I've pushed this to the master branch as f08684ab39d. Closing 
> this now. (Of course, if this *does* cause some problems, we can revisit 
> this.)

Please in the future allow more time for the "interested parties" to
respond (and maybe even ask them directly).  At the beginning of this
discussion I asked to hear more opinions, after expressing my own
hesitation, so it would be prudent to let me chime in and say whether
I'm okay with the change before installing the changes right after
Stefan said he agreed with you...

Message #50 received at 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: trentbuck <at> gmail.com, philipk <at> posteo.net, 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 gregory <at> heytings.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 08:52:50 -0700

On 9/5/2023 5:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 21:43:25 -0700
>> Cc: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>,
>>   Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
>>   gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
>>
>> As such, I've pushed this to the master branch as f08684ab39d. Closing
>> this now. (Of course, if this *does* cause some problems, we can revisit
>> this.)
> 
> Please in the future allow more time for the "interested parties" to
> respond (and maybe even ask them directly).  At the beginning of this
> discussion I asked to hear more opinions, after expressing my own
> hesitation, so it would be prudent to let me chime in and say whether
> I'm okay with the change before installing the changes right after
> Stefan said he agreed with you...

Will do, sorry about that. If you'd prefer that I revert this, just let 
me know (or you can; whichever is fine by me).

Message #53 received at 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: trentbuck <at> gmail.com, philipk <at> posteo.net, 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 gregory <at> heytings.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#62370: 28.1; sieve-mode: faces should inherit from
 font-lock-X-face faces
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 19:17:03 +0300

> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 08:52:50 -0700
> Cc: trentbuck <at> gmail.com, philipk <at> posteo.net, gregory <at> heytings.org,
>  stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
> 
> On 9/5/2023 5:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 21:43:25 -0700
> >> Cc: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck <at> gmail.com>,
> >>   Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
> >>   gregory <at> heytings.org, 62370-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
> >>
> >> As such, I've pushed this to the master branch as f08684ab39d. Closing
> >> this now. (Of course, if this *does* cause some problems, we can revisit
> >> this.)
> > 
> > Please in the future allow more time for the "interested parties" to
> > respond (and maybe even ask them directly).  At the beginning of this
> > discussion I asked to hear more opinions, after expressing my own
> > hesitation, so it would be prudent to let me chime in and say whether
> > I'm okay with the change before installing the changes right after
> > Stefan said he agreed with you...
> 
> Will do, sorry about that. If you'd prefer that I revert this, just let 
> me know (or you can; whichever is fine by me).

No need to revert, no.  Let's see if there are any complaints from
people who use this mode.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.