Re: recent VM vs gutter patches ????

Didier Verna <didier(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: Didier, if you're working on this, you might want to fix the code. The above comment, as it stands, does not cover all the cases. Imagine the default face having a background pixmap. Say face A exists and specifies its own background color. The color prevails over the background inherited from default, which is good. But now imagine a face B which inherits from face A (and specifies something inconsequential, such as its foreground color.) You would expect the face B to display exactly as the face A, except for the different foreground color? What happens is that face B gets displayed incorrectly, because the MAYBE_UNFROB_BACKGROUND_PIXMAP sees that B doesn't specify its own background color and concludes that the inherited background pixmap should win. Substitute modeline for A and modeline-mousable for B, and you'll understand what's wrong with this picture: What happens here is that my default face has a nearly black background pixmap. However, I prefer my modeline to look like a widget, and have this statement in my .emacs: (set-face-background 'modeline "gray80") But modeline-mousable and modeline-buffer-id faces *inherit* from modeline, and for them the default background wins, as explained above. The correct way to resolve this conflict is like this: The cachel needs to have either a background or a background pixmap. Instead of examining only the specifications of one face, the code should go upward in the face inheritance hierarchy, and stop at the level where either `background' or `background-pixmap' is specified, and make that one the winner for the cachel. If they are specified on the same level, `background' wins. This was originally formulated by Ben, and I believe it would work correctly in all cases. The current code would be the special case of it, where the `background' is specified for the current case and no upward examination is necessary.