X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:06:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B.17111199097019 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: report 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Received: via spool by submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B.17111199097019 (code B ref -1); Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:06:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Mar 2024 15:05:09 +0000 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> 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 lLWKGa2yUFNd3PJfBeYu8usDE+DwpE5ULsKNgkvF0HBzxaNfAbCFw7oJ8Nn8sIm4IET5mKE+W IQi+V8atfwWa1zmSipB0rf7EnzCKldS4v7/vytLS3cDRJfEGj/HibOY6UHUwS4DDN2oDkn4op z0kOrtkXtijqNIAE4tSc9bEwCcDpjZWK/tQx0sweuRCXwpryS3qPLf/S8DoQKODIBL0idg4ZP GBJ9qdGhgsfscK30zmfi3Og37Ps0Cj8VTGZERLqdbra8FAcsnneuMfRVVS1G0nTDBnZJQY2Bn yHBMVBfkHdenXr/s3MDaRkq04DEWIKh3jCPQbV/IUXCttjcUp31AswQCW5FIkIA0bM1wpZofQ afOAAhzafGSerpoc6ioZR68C7wLTk7VSahsCfPQDVFEkGdeLJNiK4dCSBq2M1dA7x/jj1jXCb bYmwy9azZ9Vl3iP5z6ltvATwGeW5FGU2n7NoPyZWjrmS7bhgz2ptZpplm2MaOFs6pTcNBktVd NPQyza3oUW9IKW7hqXSTCf5ZxTEiGKfn41vjGPwWjGZtRAM1lYP8kgbmkoVjysoZIfyQO3Eo9 Zegl7mubBujwPXat5FyNAQ0MRIqN15ap4Jp8TWbva7xgft8NlPuxHwNMEFCQXVBnCH+SlFdth nEZVLzJ4dBf52+e2v7Yb7YK7vNr8EuxCXFX0s2zKx8u0fARzdwgsGp3onBHtJ3REPcCd196sr Sts5nuWS5tsPwT05AtKcjZCNr8Y0cyQhD6HocvIuulH7vyO5AZw2xzFjOdWkcukOR7WZHiYLq sMuIl1GmtOqd4ayaDR9RXMEVANNmzWpcIYeGY+7+0DNRM= 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-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 --=-=-=--
Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System) To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Subject: bug#69942: Acknowledgement (30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels) Message-ID: <handler.69942.B.17111199097019.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org> References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 69942 X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs Reply-To: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:06:02 +0000 Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org. This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message has been received. Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please send it to 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org. Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. --=20 69942: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D69942 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:35:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171112169112429 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>, Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171112169112429 (code B ref 69942); Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:35:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Mar 2024 15:34:51 +0000 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> In-Reply-To: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> (bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN) References: <87frwinw9c.fsf@HIDDEN> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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.
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:16:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171122854916700 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171122854916700 (code B ref 69942); Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:16:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Mar 2024 21:15:49 +0000 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 Content-Language: en-US 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-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.
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:49:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171130609030971 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171130609030971 (code B ref 69942); Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:49:01 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2024 18:48:10 +0000 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> 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 b3YWLtlFyon1yeJag4rWXRtZblDm/LAvBDBpsbrJFoyO/QHd3qbZixU7n9xwL44gpKvFLdmmL a1NkDnHhcvTFz27ckffE3tXOmpNf9Tcys4xiaJ0DMHJ5WeIolS8ZpnO9SLbc2f28w0FdTlLNr GyvphB5CNgA3WO9Gmofkk3NvVEpgmaCYcC/MVTUpZzYN32Qm/SPUNrpnTljgwNcl3ny7eRYZe fBTwIGohfL01tgEj94YVxojGBIudx9X2n3/gDKGcZwBmCxvt/JqhQcUKpqVnuxFtzu/8pvVhS oS0aSch+NBz2ZT6s6gBdRJnCBsB2EVMTtIa9NhSomQlgYTTkHj1le3g86W+VX5qFyv+WH+3Kw VOWhIKVTJB8rPwW1mhJC89ITSh/hHk2uag9FohB+ZaCiHwDSPL/GBxPm3nV+EnAf1rLrTbwLM WZaKozSBzxzApi/0PQmXXHF/0A+42aCSYiAVXALVxcD6xQfSZa/94HqRv78w9LHE5NxoUG7Ld Xq4Vba/uuEq2SenmWu/kwJpFycl5s2hJKUNwt38z5NZUficE/sjZoxXB/H/e4GpnO8MYaHLoY CayQbTeLoutkGtEK9Zzm8nQuYUX+iKPfljhuxtRHuiUjclnc0S38sGX//JwrvyaTi6YZpJ/vj JTwXsEO0Wqk7VLAPvzP/dT8by5X1cljfZ8pDGQePwoGJOs/bs6a1lN0XQUNcHbLFyxR6G2UYn DVgdbTl0/jXPVgetQeoK+rIPBxXMoTKDnQ3t696FisqhfCV6IKA2HJ9dBTK5Wh+iu0i8jqmY1 svJsJRaTOOSOT1Y//s9eEl3HB6DBuYIc+H7h514Be1wpg= 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-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
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:42:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171132729314912 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171132729314912 (code B ref 69942); Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:42:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Mar 2024 00:41:33 +0000 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> 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 5N5Peoj2k4dV8ydoMHvpEedEe90qBuaD0V+Ci9yJ2AzHJ7B8HCn4NM+LU4QxR4z3M9Ydxnv6I NJdyC4TU5KLxwXkaCifnvfP98k/SMl1NcY/n2nC2fLfuuT2CThIoHONuyjA9Dt6VGoOSQD8DC xE4ZJSsSD0V/uroXEXmpq8bAOFQhdN+tmGuRar4oVmGllrPYm5Vmm1EVdAEKSqUbtbfw2oRBk fznaJ+VV7kaoGZaP9O//cdF7wv1FrMOuBTmCQ49CEn5YJfQWnIzkJSvJKdbU0XF5pJJo8SqGM fcorYbnvus51FCbDXNR+Yfb0lonqQ4pIrmGswcHIMS8Z7umxSu6oe1EdZ9aYNRjA9K+a3zAVq qR+qLF3xmsFEauiZwCo8tKv5RV93civcWsgTXaIC6rMCHc44ETr+m2kUpessU1wgDmOskLABJ OvxzDD9iz/B/RJ1z0OwTH5zElea32zt53I7Bzgzm7bZffK1mqWl78ksRz0G/fj0nBTTXXKcMW 0MoAbIh7rr5nJLp6CZsd8EmdqZU0Yuxd3ceGHs/xJMzsoMOeqvFO756Mbpyn4JyJCvsUS22JB oIDwkdUFMluwvXcYxxgQG5uOwf6Ob+Z87LEf4VFf6Doe7/OSTYdP5ZIGws0RIO9qZw1eJDD5f /l1Wb1WUL8w9JqhiohSb28plBgvI4a+/sLMCrkV+AY7C/Jm+RCn/9Vl1Ks8x96T65m5x6b9sB NVyju+pap2sm1io6OZya/i3bPeDmH9ycM+BeH1+Ef5yeqwG8eJzVV5aSYIxnF5NEjPZBZMmCI MBpmm/JHwTsiC8prUzuxd+sSTwjdhpnhxwid5bMYg6vI0= 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-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)) --=-=-=--
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 15:22:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171198490414232 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171198490414232 (code B ref 69942); Mon, 01 Apr 2024 15:22:01 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Apr 2024 15:21:44 +0000 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> 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-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
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:03:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171239416028070 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, maurooaranda@HIDDEN Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171239416028070 (code B ref 69942); Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:03:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Apr 2024 09:02:40 +0000 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> In-Reply-To: <871q7pw1l4.fsf@HIDDEN> (message from Stephen Berman on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200) 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-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?
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.17125739452479 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.17125739452479 (code B ref 69942); Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:00:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2024 10:59:05 +0000 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 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-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.
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:16:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.17125749357353 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.17125749357353 (code B ref 69942); Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:16:03 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2024 11:15:35 +0000 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> 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-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
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 12:04:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171257781432311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stephen.berman@HIDDEN Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171257781432311 (code B ref 69942); Mon, 08 Apr 2024 12:04:01 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2024 12:03:34 +0000 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> In-Reply-To: <3c8e0d62-4a92-413f-9064-a06514948860@HIDDEN> (message from Mauro Aranda on 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> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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.
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:24:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.17134322328461 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stephen.berman@HIDDEN Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.17134322328461 (code B ref 69942); Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:24:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2024 09:23:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51276 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rxNzj-0002CF-1y for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 05:23:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42922) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1rxNzc-0002An-Ts for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 05:23:48 -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 1rxNzJ-0004CC-Sk; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 05:23:25 -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=KH8gzSzCMGyNVDqB46m6ND0+UTiSV+Suz/fBBBOHvxg=; b=iKI5aMjTmoAykL9N8u42 BejswLYOlSehW/oP+FPiqP2B2kgPy5cn+o2J1GOrXHXSNnMpZy6OrSsfUJaef3TnasytNAcGdlooL YrYwjP19NErWUfIdyWsfIducNBS6D9as4O1OsSzLSbsMLxcuBdvsvnyErO/YnXXfg4XC9mr4i73om bpl8j+lr45+HSKhh7QYz8Y24+Rcz1VQqRsrLn1A7+ht+4hl77uRd5uTj+IMSNVKiuM3fdBze7iN0A enCQVQI49cPYMdYT70cVpeVmgzIUZeJUPyAyOQN73PHqrgGB8+cPkxAeItwA7d5tFunIZi4YX8y5I aUSAZ1ptIkWGqw==; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:23:14 +0300 Message-Id: <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <3c8e0d62-4a92-413f-9064-a06514948860@HIDDEN> (message from Mauro Aranda on 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> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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> > > 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. Mauro, were you able to find time to look into this and the other 2 bugs?
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 10:09:12 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171343489825135 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, stephen.berman@HIDDEN Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171343489825135 (code B ref 69942); Thu, 18 Apr 2024 10:09:12 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2024 10:08:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51466 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rxOgf-0006X8-Hp for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 06:08:16 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]:53347) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <maurooaranda@HIDDEN>) id 1rxOgY-0006W7-40 for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 06:08:10 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1e4266673bbso6408325ad.2 for <69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 03:07:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1713434867; x=1714039667; 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=e4rgjGjPpkrPfDOz0cotmk84kP+r2DSmSt2Fr5cECoY=; b=Om4yj/DErlWVPYOZ+6zdKt3uGEEiHtRkhyk1qbw3WsQ5TeGMNF+l8XPkJVrbBTARnw n1hX5iL6fOP+/8u8DDAFEZuxLPXprcKm8UiPbWOwZIsodFEUs/Xs0WPnThGfa96MnWCB Pmwbq+WTVWmLyn3+yqMWSKH7aoFu1zh17MgUk3LQq6rNTWY5UYPfcY3mRAPm8fdqjLWM hgRXrf/3+Lbk+mmwMqIqqpTkZb0dsMie2hgY+dLvzp/XwqJ8a00UCgMmQrhrciM+b61u aTiDKUR7vibNWypB+1T4EVZ5F8Tu/yBbVgRmzzvmrI8u80LqNor7o17SqppvYOpocSE2 Glcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713434867; x=1714039667; 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=e4rgjGjPpkrPfDOz0cotmk84kP+r2DSmSt2Fr5cECoY=; b=oRT8ZX/6d5x8m4cXi+gBY0FszmF9r7ivoVAdzXmycJeYr5kc+Tl84FxMAWEE2HxkEI uhASp5j6Z8yNrNPB0zjkpoCYEdkJFdAzAli8MAEa4nLyoFVIPALYgUuVARKxF3bzFndJ OM++pdYenHoQyBvHgH2QsPVOumrcqqgAftkwzc5trpnMfsf/g04RzhEvmqUGj79cbpxf Ddvm11PdrwbjCXeUMsHuyKzHpzVeEry8HE9F98ew8dkbejKwVkcMH1/eSd7ZycRQ4WMb YqeMvIHdjkifYIECH5wEEVnMcM7Gl00fpeggGohtSog1VFP1Fmd6hVLu0WQ5PxIlV/AI h6Nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwR8RcMLwgN1jKbuYnWHRohBRaPj1drIoXfxa//P4mbpCDk76vw vt7brWMgZ4fGWrIgrwqo33ZOuNZzdv8RFEHgwF6Z1CalgCS6D3TE X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEGnNi/5AZDKVWUf8NvXNuXgCsA/v9YyJDwCyhdmI3Xd89k1NeW2r2zu2z467dbHRiKxRO68Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:da85:b0:1e1:6850:f823 with SMTP id j5-20020a170902da8500b001e16850f823mr3084448plx.13.1713434866708; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 03:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([181.228.33.6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b14-20020a170902650e00b001e5e6877494sm1168938plk.238.2024.04.18.03.07.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Apr 2024 03:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d36ff4c-fea8-4f64-b401-1351f91446a1@HIDDEN> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:07:43 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 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> <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> Content-Language: en-US From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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 (-) Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes: >> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 >> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >> From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> >> >> 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. > > Mauro, were you able to find time to look into this and the other 2 > bugs? I have, just now. The patch looks good to me. It'll be great if Stephen can add some documentation to the manual, so it stays updated. If not, I can do that in a few days.
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:41:20 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.17134476351880 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.17134476351880 (code B ref 69942); Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:41:20 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2024 13:40:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52500 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1rxRzx-0000Rj-Ep for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:40:32 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:45401) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1rxRxy-0008JG-M4 for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:38:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net; s=s31663417; t=1713447479; x=1714052279; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN; bh=5lROEsLzcaT7G4EW++bj/U2TW2Tnl0obZhv/1w/9q+U=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=dDOJ7f0ugl8BUYHsYgI/FFKp2Em+9hg9YZ9hkqQ4OaBMszIS5XuRodflxtyAMbEB Rc9+b/JYCQE9U/pvdh/cmMc9Fw5Rj0TO30/45BV34LvkdtPixgN9kt3zSTsqgzNoo vI8hLY4+Xr3hWU0Kq/hF0g4GUSXrEyO7qfqpjM7T7nHqCENNzZ8M0PrhOPB5h/iqU FILLhSElcJHv/JrWO4IRQs0kMB+C0SMh57snuEq9rC9QOEwYLTvnMog0sAck65c+e FC0X4sfRYuAyM0ComtSKUrigjTgCR02KKC34eZqtwktR9ewPaN3cLZoK0XBEfMfLu /TqrK5tF0iMdGgrT9w== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from strobelfs ([94.134.94.180]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mlw7f-1sOE3Z3LE3-00j4Ir; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:37:58 +0200 From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <5d36ff4c-fea8-4f64-b401-1351f91446a1@HIDDEN> (Mauro Aranda's message of "Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:07:43 -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> <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> <5d36ff4c-fea8-4f64-b401-1351f91446a1@HIDDEN> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:37:58 +0200 Message-ID: <877cguhjux.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:a6TFbkOlDKMtdhFU+nJP6mkUqvPRHnKN1jN+qVUPJ9RDstdgCcd cSALxxsI4CYCZjhRjY170H8IlIop/beNNx4VDEJTJZDOMH5BJKZyPBFox/nqR8AZPuyOhHK ANLDykZrzm1d43dIicQSfnnpLSUQzT64P0YsQU83Ook5TG4TrCUIQEJEKFmBVNwHxLqg1a6 zKQ08pVMDJWv2bG8wKihw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:nGGnHpwbQPg=;oVTqQ87FhFoJOan/NksnX1WPmvG qg7GtgvozE0o0+Zl12HRLsceU4tBc1+/4c3S0nRtUYylhDGUbruUKDkikICxe7z5/wo6Y+4wZ 3qUBID8FEiQufvsMeqJqO5x1ycOE0zSfQ1n4M4WZlCmuvcG2vy7ugArgpExwsygSJpih1FmXS riS8kVvJqOnj57gs9LGIDMg5qOH09Iq1FXOfN0Zq2/DnHOH9W4m6tMlFwKRXrfQEstyPIIkzU d/k6YmGq7BQBwj01tO89IDSfce+83v36Zq8Gc9zqFZdMo3WFcyixVXKuwMyrIOMcqW1SqggTb XeDUcWO1Z8DGX9pDznDzRGLeGCV/b1I062XCIfGJISceptIsulMMJdzlGZ+eOwPhFR/eq6kK+ PSG06WlwaDPigpk47GoFb6Awgob8ve4NgzJ9fjt9I/kbxkfNaAjc0wp6t8FXgWcOrPpxyG66Q /C/sjlhpDE93/QP7wAabNyx58vrcDma/h40+Qxuug143F0rmcZ86mUPyX11TIbqicbaGSOtJT W6qSnnUG/gc6wxQEgbCS7mOyvL56f5nPClQdI7B8I19yXvq09slXyjVaU6pE+UymRMKcPex9D vD7jQIbHRBf5NphW92g31Ek4U9eL8VVprxJrk8eiAIjrEhQ1SAH4BFXJS9dgoat+Lpo08+E1y HJzWwy+dqMw9AKJGcW6ySCoWGXyiWLvq936gUS6LDR9Md+k/uvqfsI/zt2h0aiwrcicmALGlR fnOcQKU+MKEBpyNvNGFvWFwR/Ac0S2ngCF80K4Lh8FRd+VU/sh5bkQ/AArk+PydWtxl3jOifX zztD2orFk7EYQujD+XmVK+2zj//6S0IXrt+N2xYH2JT7c= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:07:43 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> wr= ote: > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes: > >>> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 >>> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >>> From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> >>> >>> On 6/4/24 06:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>=C2=A0 >> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> >>>=C2=A0 >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >>>=C2=A0 >> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200 >>>=C2=A0 >> >>>=C2=A0 >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100 Stephen Berman >>> <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: >>>=C2=A0 >> >>>=C2=A0 >>> Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishing by fa= ces >>>=C2=A0 >>> selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radio-butto= n-choice >>>=C2=A0 >>> widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the attache= d patch. >>>=C2=A0 >>> Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more testing. >>>=C2=A0 >> >>>=C2=A0 >> Any comments on this patch for using a widget-unselected face?= =C2=A0 I have >>>=C2=A0 >> been detained from further testing this past week, but can now= resume. >>>=C2=A0 > >>>=C2=A0 > 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. >> >> Mauro, were you able to find time to look into this and the other 2 >> bugs? > > I have, just now.=C2=A0 The patch looks good to me.=C2=A0 It'll be great = if > Stephen can add some documentation to the manual, so it stays updated. > If not, I can do that in a few days. Sure, I'll add documentation and post it here for approval before pushing the changes. Steve Berman
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:46:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.17137287487752 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.17137287487752 (code B ref 69942); Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:46:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2024 19:45:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44549 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ryd8F-00020m-BW for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:45:48 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:52313) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1ryd8C-0001zW-8D for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:45:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net; s=s31663417; t=1713728722; x=1714333522; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN; bh=ipjP/QBRDqIkdHugXYY6jar1zR73jD8+5/LkRvSlKts=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=YsuGp2tEH4gEID0ivscrdmDIFLHu9hONJbxpSLfVuEh0xh3eZNhkLdXkR+LHldsr /ohu0MDqojMYZRt30PRElmk+TMK50OEJnQOkALrlhmJedLz4NI66Safg7K/Tx0rD+ RR3kUvhr0hqhHVmrrKER9gNy9PykViuRD+GPUGLdFpiLwpZlkwRpenDeyW+XobYCD AG7A67TXl9T66dTO2WGUkjRrzocN60h3/nrG1MrWr4AdsP9b9uPZ4Y/VtkswdAyyf up4s2rucAu3+09j0D8GR3vW5r7d95sdUXY9QDNV9od8edjMRlnie7tfTQWeu9hq5c bm5alL6FIguzaOB4qQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from strobelfs ([94.134.94.36]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N2mFY-1shkRK12nE-0137wD; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:45:22 +0200 From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <877cguhjux.fsf@HIDDEN> (Stephen Berman's message of "Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:37:58 +0200") 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> <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> <5d36ff4c-fea8-4f64-b401-1351f91446a1@HIDDEN> <877cguhjux.fsf@HIDDEN> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:45:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87y196lctq.fsf@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:jEIrF+abh4D3EPzhQZxarDfapigO8RdS96OuvjRbkQ3xBMeELhy BIJlvTQz2WTRXetedWK8wVSJ6yvaAvwzoYSviq63679BQ5tRJu6558RDcyhe8mVyhstS67v hM9UdvMpPhWDDVqsnOKyFatICDQshfn1AY7xvus1AapLkqViOfryzrucRsEfw94Df9hro6g Et/wDQCPDSYVa7zKjk7Vg== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:gpCH6TeO4Jo=;Io9NAXHXDihXh9Vokkeq/QFqZ0I 8YFSrbCgevWIX8aNxSaiwYkQR9tLqDaqKUfIXL40UjBnfithv29tZYFaxAFs8PUhdDBeX0AjU xh+6FdaVEZQipEXx6rjwkqHzs1LvRNDUUI8DjZmL8sd8iFkNbMlHxSNSC0uXY2UO0eYzeLIuF eF0dW5c2z225/4JuEv0sJhTwoqh55TzKV9dz7zJRW+JrNERHEgwDGWTzFX8YKUteu8ukjdsk2 aQYRIiviQkKXrcMkogCHV53Wpw8i9CyO6BHHBn8sQ3SsziKKC6+3CurWUpMdCt9jVqOBVZR6m qwNhNlIa/5OGFmumWWF/28P3Fzx2KIFcDQydcpfPvohn+4LRStvPBavma8rEHSptYECRZNoiD wu0OIkIplJTIWM8aM1HgVMraABxKeo5w0kGNhoy4Amoabk9nMfbaTOpUqHJqORlSHW2/qMSf0 YKLdYLNYhxMdnarz5I2J2SDHEmXoGt/07WryES73Pc/BN8J11gMJ54ELPlg8vX9lWzEmHvNEY ytZVqrpzKVAFxqoY4Iq/tB2IIdU98xBO8cfnQb9qOFexaqDm/vMNAiZoJ2UUXfiDkqyl409EX EfgnJ/UIN5p+UM61RL3iM73kHzgu3sTQPZXajXF7hkcjTMWg2dobhC2aLtZu9G/yQ72Bt6ctw mCMyMZtF2AtxouPvXr+LhZhhtmFb7GpMbtnLcRhWe++LfzTEJpLx552c7Z37J5uGJ3cpiZDEf META3BeXy5IFtYI84RS9/ZO+eA5JgYxEeAOnrSlUCyyL3Yb6H236uNj4zYm005cWWTvTaDm9A JmMDIQGUZAhiQ9LZB1KhFTtQcLDl5eC3MVHh3urYdokU0= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:37:58 +0200 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> = wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:07:43 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> = wrote: > >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes: >> >>>> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 >>>> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >>>> From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> >>>> >>>> On 6/4/24 06:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>>=A0 >> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> >>>>=A0 >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >>>>=A0 >> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200 >>>>=A0 >> >>>>=A0 >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100 Stephen Berman >>>> <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: >>>>=A0 >> >>>>=A0 >>> Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishing by faces >>>>=A0 >>> selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radio-button-= choice >>>>=A0 >>> widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the attached = patch. >>>>=A0 >>> Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more testing. >>>>=A0 >> >>>>=A0 >> Any comments on this patch for using a widget-unselected face?= =A0 I have >>>>=A0 >> been detained from further testing this past week, but can now r= esume. >>>>=A0 > >>>>=A0 > 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.=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. >>> >>> Mauro, were you able to find time to look into this and the other 2 >>> bugs? >> >> I have, just now.=A0 The patch looks good to me.=A0 It'll be great if >> Stephen can add some documentation to the manual, so it stays updated. >> If not, I can do that in a few days. > > Sure, I'll add documentation and post it here for approval before > pushing the changes. I've encountered some problems with the patch. One is that it breaks the display of all face attributes in the customize-face buffer. I've determined the part of the patch that triggers this, though I haven't yet figured out just why this bit of code breaks the display. Also, it appears that the widget-unselected face does not completely replace widget-inactive where it's intended to do so, but I need to do more testing and debugging here to find out why. Until I've fixed these issues the patch is not suitable for installing, so I'm also holding off with the accompanying documentation. (But in preparation for the documentation I looked more closely at the Widget manual and found several typos and other issues, for which I opened bug#70502.) Steve Berman
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:50:10 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171413574411302 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171413574411302 (code B ref 69942); Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:50:10 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Apr 2024 12:49:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34299 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1s0L0X-0002uP-MS for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:49:03 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:56753) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1s0KzY-0002h7-2Y for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:48:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net; s=s31663417; t=1714135647; x=1714740447; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN; bh=O7P7K2PoSctPMoXXx5eh4zyiJsdipKkdzqwsucXpufM=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:cc:content-transfer-encoding: content-type:date:from:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject: to; b=eVz6ciu95/s77Cji0FsMl9SydT5HrimkTnq9hjI2licUMVdbmeHYrr7vItS610dj HOZmo5uv8iiRRbqz6/SVjmkcWe2MV/BLbzITYgf8omqStqeqZ3G6CNXZOFF5hemYL am5e8aHPdF42sc0Oh7s3fleiY18t7sPTLhzGbE3r/EnUW3ZEdgYZyXwaGoBJHEnwL 5A77nXXuFmF/wVsh1bBgEig/YbFB2mfwN98EDiDMuDhV9V6ibM9SZwgHK8hYO5LjF zxxiKr5xA9NSxpJrJeW+Ljk5pQ7mobQb+J+5TfbwndghIeYLPCUsL32sRBE1nb+xt 2H/pLP+6zOljjznBuQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from strobelfs ([94.134.94.5]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MrQEx-1sVG9o1TgV-00oTVs; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:47:27 +0200 From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <87y196lctq.fsf@HIDDEN> (Stephen Berman's message of "Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:45:21 +0200") 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> <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> <5d36ff4c-fea8-4f64-b401-1351f91446a1@HIDDEN> <877cguhjux.fsf@HIDDEN> <87y196lctq.fsf@HIDDEN> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:47:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87o79wl28x.fsf@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:XZr7aoBWrKnzOgKO332PQmAfvKdXTGKPf+cKXh0AY2H6tCoEncM RgsqEtu2vSjlAI5Vh+pqRLA/dfa8b1B9GDT+skNwo7AABV+UbKMJiAPXQlheDJBVmB5LPQl +gnBpUK/9bjS4I9X8/6x2okmNwRU3y07ESkGqkHwcJhWXjbA3Eyt3fZT3++hbTTBQalAKZ4 gJNbyazHIJep+az8uoq0w== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:zsbrJPaIsV8=;f10gKNjateD2fgcrGKnrRaOJmEt 72vzuCgRkG8lgEHlCRHSpfI8mepAiekd2AaegPbVkES+pwHL7BZ/ARQdvOip+EA7c8LQ5Gkj+ sXCd//ccId+I4mhzfNsH8T4IKBKbGlYBr4aMwPRv1e0FQu6mSTUge74lDulMj6C6WVsnrWLAm yr4HiJ5U37bAguLC5ywft7Nk+N/4VThwS5Q3ra6qh1kZBVBZzjggJhrAJx2SVmMB1zOFX2jcA nKDU+I/SKa2G2X1aZMQOgBkLeg9RLhI49WTgexvwCFmdw5OrGfNCO5K6SrMO/VGdcGwfTmCJP +CUJx7Vr5mtoL6r10s6ZRmKAMhozMHYdTn0Hi5XrGN2RnEwexvvfHfLiAei/L+y5rg8BVyAcG E8k+YNpw5JjAWoOsD7fr1W+qD4bbnPYCfbkTiI6bKTXzSdfCZTYZnFjVPup9iW9nawCI9obSQ Ck/uIJNiL2eevFtoUiYGjRBfBe/mdlTfqGjtITi6Ik8HYdXwwhf9LTo7AWkf5nEAuPVqLMdMg V3y3R8PUg3Ydn6AUPyIZAIaNjbKeaF+RaA0zarHYvlqOhbQnRcn5miNy3uZVw8FFnO3e+eYHq ht4ddRZECA+HmyYSRvt9AepPJBBOd3lpMojp2VimP6r3WHg8SgXCbZy78JtFmxCrUe/QVt9xS tK+jt2nNkGnVmMlbrflqOKJ9KaiIt3gZGZJu8WEhfUKNOdqC0Efi+D8PXmnsN4KLbp9YVwEvy pG5V/2vcZafYsXEoJOwgk7my3PwQCZQOo7Pq1XNaeHOHB7KoUTDSCCwNMB2Q7UjmoUUmBtNCy hoo/PBjUmnIlx6gmWVZBX/RmfwSvhsdvO6IdNu3+hbPX0= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:45:21 +0200 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> = wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:37:58 +0200 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN= > wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:07:43 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN>= wrote: >> >>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes: >>> >>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 >>>>> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >>>>> From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/4/24 06:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>>>=C2=A0 >> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> >>>>>=C2=A0 >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >>>>>=C2=A0 >> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200 >>>>>=C2=A0 >> >>>>>=C2=A0 >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100 Stephen Berman >>>>> <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: >>>>>=C2=A0 >> >>>>>=C2=A0 >>> Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishing by = faces >>>>>=C2=A0 >>> selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radio-but= ton-choice >>>>>=C2=A0 >>> widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the attac= hed patch. >>>>>=C2=A0 >>> Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more testing. >>>>>=C2=A0 >> >>>>>=C2=A0 >> Any comments on this patch for using a widget-unselected fac= e?=C2=A0 I have >>>>>=C2=A0 >> been detained from further testing this past week, but can n= ow resume. >>>>>=C2=A0 > >>>>>=C2=A0 > 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. >>>> >>>> Mauro, were you able to find time to look into this and the other 2 >>>> bugs? >>> >>> I have, just now.=C2=A0 The patch looks good to me.=C2=A0 It'll be grea= t if >>> Stephen can add some documentation to the manual, so it stays updated. >>> If not, I can do that in a few days. >> >> Sure, I'll add documentation and post it here for approval before >> pushing the changes. > > I've encountered some problems with the patch. One is that it breaks > the display of all face attributes in the customize-face buffer. I've > determined the part of the patch that triggers this, though I haven't > yet figured out just why this bit of code breaks the display. Also, it > appears that the widget-unselected face does not completely replace > widget-inactive where it's intended to do so, but I need to do more > testing and debugging here to find out why. Until I've fixed these > issues the patch is not suitable for installing, so I'm also holding off > with the accompanying documentation. (But in preparation for the > documentation I looked more closely at the Widget manual and found > several typos and other issues, for which I opened bug#70502.) The breakage in displaying all face attributes in the customize-face buffer was caused by the invocation of `(widget-specify-selected child)' in widget-checklist-add-item in the cond-clause satisfying `(widget-inline-p type t)'. I still don't understand why it has this effect, and I have to admit that I don't understand what an inline widget is. But simply omitting the invocation of `(widget-specify-selected child)' at this point in the patch does avoid the customize-face breakage and I have not noticed any problems due to this omission. As for the problematic interaction between the widget-unselected and widget-inactive faces, this seems to have been due to my having copied most of the definition of widget-specify-unselected from that of widget-specify-inactive, and specifically, copying the overlay priority. In the attached patch, widget-specify-unselected now uses a lower overlay priority than the one used in widget-specify-inactive, and in my tests this yields the desired results: the labels of active checkboxes and radio-buttons have widget-unselected face but when these widgets are deactivated, the labels have widget-inactive face. Another change I've made in the attached patch is to have the default value of widget-unselected face inherit from widget-inactive instead of inheriting from shadow face, like widget-inactive does by default. This way, if a user customizes widget-inactive, that will also apply by default to widget-unselected, thus retaining the current default widget UI where the labels of checkboxes and radio-buttons have widget-inactive face. (Thus, the "desired results" in the preceding paragraph are only visible when widget-unselected face is customized to differ from widget-unselected face.) Finally, regarding documentation of widget-unselected face in the Widget manual, I think it would be helpful for the documentation to mention the use case that motivated introducing it (following Mauro's suggestion to use a face instead of a defcustom), namely, to visually distinguish the labels of unselected and inactive widgets. Here is what I suggest: @deffn Face widget-unselected Face used for unselected widgets. This face is also used on the text labels of radio-button and checkbox widgets. The default value inherits @code{widget-inactive} face. If you want to visually distinguish the labels of unselected active radio-button or checkbox widgets from the labels of unselected inactive widgets, customize this face to a non-default value. @end deffn Since the recent widget.texi changes that include documenting widget-inactive face have not yet been merged to master, I haven't included the propopsed documentaton of widget-unselected in the attached patch, but if approved, will of course add it after the merge. Steve Berman --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-patch Content-Disposition: attachment Content-Description: widget-unselected patch Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable diff --git a/lisp/wid-edit.el b/lisp/wid-edit.el index dc481d4d0a5..b7673b01c73 100644 =2D-- a/lisp/wid-edit.el +++ b/lisp/wid-edit.el @@ -555,6 +555,29 @@ widget-specify-active (delete-overlay inactive) (widget-put widget :inactive nil)))) +(defface widget-unselected + '((t :inherit widget-inactive)) + "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) + ;; The overlay priority here should be lower than the priority in + ;; `widget-specify-active' (bug#69942). + (overlay-put overlay 'priority 90) + (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) @@ -2439,10 +2462,16 @@ '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. @@ -2498,15 +2527,18 @@ 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))) (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. @@ -2677,8 +2709,11 @@ 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. @@ -2728,14 +2763,17 @@ 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. @@ -2755,13 +2793,16 @@ 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)) --=-=-=--
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 07:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171523939927397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, maurooaranda@HIDDEN Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171523939927397 (code B ref 69942); Thu, 09 May 2024 07:24:01 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 May 2024 07:23:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53603 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1s4y7a-00077n-Cl for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2024 03:23:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47800) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1s4y7X-00077h-Kw for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2024 03:23:16 -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 1s4y72-0007Gs-Dj; Thu, 09 May 2024 03:22:44 -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=SutXpIVYSgaX7SEz3YqAlvuXOvFLHITlQ9COY8sJDJU=; b=IUFT0kWewbs6WUio5a32 9/4zSbe2PVZW3IY0j+G8zVUQ++1/N0OvVyT3U6dmLNiO4PkbiR6f4KnE2ntSrwaf6H4Rx4mMNKiZI YCWpb8Re6M8ip+9Pc4Ch0oEAJ3P8Ir2eunSKfqGrVpJiEf86nUbaenRa6O3v24MPf9W/0d8wscm6A yAR1Kr+qy7hJXxg3LhQI2qyXY0JjMJrFFbWzkkjHhPFspRZ6Ofl56IOMZCWAd3bRrNnjP/CTv4x3/ hYBiHGVleA9JsvkA0gPTEeI5xjfpfZqzN/AHV2uQmGWndVgBjoG3bmsZqg7YuW0/FHDwrURmqaO3D JjNnSFdWqLJ1Mw==; Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 10:22:35 +0300 Message-Id: <86zfsz78lg.fsf@HIDDEN> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <87o79wl28x.fsf@HIDDEN> (message from Stephen Berman on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:47:26 +0200) 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> <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> <5d36ff4c-fea8-4f64-b401-1351f91446a1@HIDDEN> <877cguhjux.fsf@HIDDEN> <87y196lctq.fsf@HIDDEN> <87o79wl28x.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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 (---) Ping! Any further comments, or is there agreement to install the proposed patch? > From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:47:26 +0200 > > On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:45:21 +0200 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:37:58 +0200 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:07:43 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> wrote: > >> > >>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes: > >>> > >>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 > >>>>> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org > >>>>> From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Mauro, were you able to find time to look into this and the other 2 > >>>> bugs? > >>> > >>> I have, just now. The patch looks good to me. It'll be great if > >>> Stephen can add some documentation to the manual, so it stays updated. > >>> If not, I can do that in a few days. > >> > >> Sure, I'll add documentation and post it here for approval before > >> pushing the changes. > > > > I've encountered some problems with the patch. One is that it breaks > > the display of all face attributes in the customize-face buffer. I've > > determined the part of the patch that triggers this, though I haven't > > yet figured out just why this bit of code breaks the display. Also, it > > appears that the widget-unselected face does not completely replace > > widget-inactive where it's intended to do so, but I need to do more > > testing and debugging here to find out why. Until I've fixed these > > issues the patch is not suitable for installing, so I'm also holding off > > with the accompanying documentation. (But in preparation for the > > documentation I looked more closely at the Widget manual and found > > several typos and other issues, for which I opened bug#70502.) > > The breakage in displaying all face attributes in the customize-face > buffer was caused by the invocation of `(widget-specify-selected child)' > in widget-checklist-add-item in the cond-clause satisfying > `(widget-inline-p type t)'. I still don't understand why it has this > effect, and I have to admit that I don't understand what an inline > widget is. But simply omitting the invocation of > `(widget-specify-selected child)' at this point in the patch does avoid > the customize-face breakage and I have not noticed any problems due to > this omission. > > As for the problematic interaction between the widget-unselected and > widget-inactive faces, this seems to have been due to my having copied > most of the definition of widget-specify-unselected from that of > widget-specify-inactive, and specifically, copying the overlay priority. > In the attached patch, widget-specify-unselected now uses a lower > overlay priority than the one used in widget-specify-inactive, and in my > tests this yields the desired results: the labels of active checkboxes > and radio-buttons have widget-unselected face but when these widgets are > deactivated, the labels have widget-inactive face. > > Another change I've made in the attached patch is to have the default > value of widget-unselected face inherit from widget-inactive instead of > inheriting from shadow face, like widget-inactive does by default. This > way, if a user customizes widget-inactive, that will also apply by > default to widget-unselected, thus retaining the current default widget > UI where the labels of checkboxes and radio-buttons have widget-inactive > face. (Thus, the "desired results" in the preceding paragraph are only > visible when widget-unselected face is customized to differ from > widget-unselected face.) > > Finally, regarding documentation of widget-unselected face in the Widget > manual, I think it would be helpful for the documentation to mention the > use case that motivated introducing it (following Mauro's suggestion to > use a face instead of a defcustom), namely, to visually distinguish the > labels of unselected and inactive widgets. Here is what I suggest: > > @deffn Face widget-unselected > Face used for unselected widgets. This face is also used on the text > labels of radio-button and checkbox widgets. > > The default value inherits @code{widget-inactive} face. If you want to > visually distinguish the labels of unselected active radio-button or > checkbox widgets from the labels of unselected inactive widgets, > customize this face to a non-default value. > @end deffn > > Since the recent widget.texi changes that include documenting > widget-inactive face have not yet been merged to master, I haven't > included the propopsed documentaton of widget-unselected in the attached > patch, but if approved, will of course add it after the merge. > > Steve Berman
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 07:42:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171662292026369 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: maurooaranda@HIDDEN Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stephen.berman@HIDDEN Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171662292026369 (code B ref 69942); Sat, 25 May 2024 07:42:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 May 2024 07:42:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41818 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1sAm2S-0006rF-1H for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2024 03:42:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45422) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1sAm2P-0006r9-Fh for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2024 03:41:58 -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 1sAm2C-0006EJ-Oj; Sat, 25 May 2024 03:41:44 -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=JASfD0xdAdOFtdHzJgdtZVcymTcrj2bJIPj60dHrtrk=; b=lonK37k9MfvqQnauK2Ux YJtTCRejctqMhPgvMOXQmNp2Kfdy82mz+tiNQ3euIQxpPksILJP+VAcdTMjNj+DceyArpxamW3R2Q c1JtafYK62/cb2lWY51i/xMT1Qoq4jNZqcebGwLRlF4g2au5JsTL3iuLWoA/Y59gP6BTtN3qiGzls 4RSdH9sRfuDh+sdtvrEZb5jjU8hngk8/WWRd7scO7qQ4w1WtMbJe4nmt0a56TseZIIC9kvQ2YmsHM Sl0Ez4kwCyIhv1MoSq5y6r+bbYrYd12SO/qmW13OJs7rNDC4JAfmjlyVMSEfV9k0ojL60vWh/imn+ c/rizQ3FQNvXig==; Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 10:41:40 +0300 Message-Id: <868qzy1gp7.fsf@HIDDEN> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <86zfsz78lg.fsf@HIDDEN> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Thu, 09 May 2024 10:22:35 +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> <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> <5d36ff4c-fea8-4f64-b401-1351f91446a1@HIDDEN> <877cguhjux.fsf@HIDDEN> <87y196lctq.fsf@HIDDEN> <87o79wl28x.fsf@HIDDEN> <86zfsz78lg.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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 (---) Ping! Ping! Can we please make some progress here? > Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, maurooaranda@HIDDEN > Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 10:22:35 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> > > Ping! Any further comments, or is there agreement to install the > proposed patch? > > > From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org > > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:47:26 +0200 > > > > On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:45:21 +0200 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:37:58 +0200 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:07:43 -0300 Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes: > > >>> > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 > > >>>>> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org > > >>>>> From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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. > > >>>> > > >>>> Mauro, were you able to find time to look into this and the other 2 > > >>>> bugs? > > >>> > > >>> I have, just now. The patch looks good to me. It'll be great if > > >>> Stephen can add some documentation to the manual, so it stays updated. > > >>> If not, I can do that in a few days. > > >> > > >> Sure, I'll add documentation and post it here for approval before > > >> pushing the changes. > > > > > > I've encountered some problems with the patch. One is that it breaks > > > the display of all face attributes in the customize-face buffer. I've > > > determined the part of the patch that triggers this, though I haven't > > > yet figured out just why this bit of code breaks the display. Also, it > > > appears that the widget-unselected face does not completely replace > > > widget-inactive where it's intended to do so, but I need to do more > > > testing and debugging here to find out why. Until I've fixed these > > > issues the patch is not suitable for installing, so I'm also holding off > > > with the accompanying documentation. (But in preparation for the > > > documentation I looked more closely at the Widget manual and found > > > several typos and other issues, for which I opened bug#70502.) > > > > The breakage in displaying all face attributes in the customize-face > > buffer was caused by the invocation of `(widget-specify-selected child)' > > in widget-checklist-add-item in the cond-clause satisfying > > `(widget-inline-p type t)'. I still don't understand why it has this > > effect, and I have to admit that I don't understand what an inline > > widget is. But simply omitting the invocation of > > `(widget-specify-selected child)' at this point in the patch does avoid > > the customize-face breakage and I have not noticed any problems due to > > this omission. > > > > As for the problematic interaction between the widget-unselected and > > widget-inactive faces, this seems to have been due to my having copied > > most of the definition of widget-specify-unselected from that of > > widget-specify-inactive, and specifically, copying the overlay priority. > > In the attached patch, widget-specify-unselected now uses a lower > > overlay priority than the one used in widget-specify-inactive, and in my > > tests this yields the desired results: the labels of active checkboxes > > and radio-buttons have widget-unselected face but when these widgets are > > deactivated, the labels have widget-inactive face. > > > > Another change I've made in the attached patch is to have the default > > value of widget-unselected face inherit from widget-inactive instead of > > inheriting from shadow face, like widget-inactive does by default. This > > way, if a user customizes widget-inactive, that will also apply by > > default to widget-unselected, thus retaining the current default widget > > UI where the labels of checkboxes and radio-buttons have widget-inactive > > face. (Thus, the "desired results" in the preceding paragraph are only > > visible when widget-unselected face is customized to differ from > > widget-unselected face.) > > > > Finally, regarding documentation of widget-unselected face in the Widget > > manual, I think it would be helpful for the documentation to mention the > > use case that motivated introducing it (following Mauro's suggestion to > > use a face instead of a defcustom), namely, to visually distinguish the > > labels of unselected and inactive widgets. Here is what I suggest: > > > > @deffn Face widget-unselected > > Face used for unselected widgets. This face is also used on the text > > labels of radio-button and checkbox widgets. > > > > The default value inherits @code{widget-inactive} face. If you want to > > visually distinguish the labels of unselected active radio-button or > > checkbox widgets from the labels of unselected inactive widgets, > > customize this face to a non-default value. > > @end deffn > > > > Since the recent widget.texi changes that include documenting > > widget-inactive face have not yet been merged to master, I haven't > > included the propopsed documentaton of widget-unselected in the attached > > patch, but if approved, will of course add it after the merge. > > > > Steve Berman > > > >
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN Subject: bug#69942: 30.0.50; Fontification of radio-button widget labels Resent-From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN Resent-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 09:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.69942.B69942.171662938719302 <at> debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69942 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, maurooaranda@HIDDEN Received: via spool by 69942-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B69942.171662938719302 (code B ref 69942); Sat, 25 May 2024 09:30:02 +0000 Received: (at 69942) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 May 2024 09:29:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42340 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1sAnik-00051G-C1 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2024 05:29:46 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:55821) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <stephen.berman@HIDDEN>) id 1sAnih-00051A-PT for 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2024 05:29:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.net; s=s31663417; t=1716629370; x=1717234170; i=stephen.berman@HIDDEN; bh=zQ97Jv+aM9czM89NQag8ikr6mUNWLs9Vtu+hGxY2Z3Y=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=ZDyKHfe4aHb7PTJDs3GdaFIDuVQuIBvqNIvxKZZypTTdQukFYkMdGviRCLANkuTk pP0kx8H8kCJhuivI4CK8lg4fsgYm/DGD3vASyy4DCSp+gzRprzsPNew+SLPVw5MyX CLa7eACovJAMGCOCD+AcRQVaeI09+xmdt2VmkAufKqxNIdB3sXQ0tGYiH3DMPsSGt 98Zm1hW8Wfk7ANWSi3selo4gSABkRGu52b0aywaaTBa+p7e+olT1+6/dH6dNizKlg Zu5qb5yN3laQiA7VnVI0HxEZaPebtJaLf/J61jDaZN2NhdlCJ4gAyxlGcDgaEKI+A oh78Nvodsu/4+YQ6Sw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from strobelfs ([94.134.95.181]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N5mKJ-1sZB0k2zff-015rVu; Sat, 25 May 2024 11:29:29 +0200 From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <868qzy1gp7.fsf@HIDDEN> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 25 May 2024 10:41:40 +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> <8634rjf2il.fsf@HIDDEN> <5d36ff4c-fea8-4f64-b401-1351f91446a1@HIDDEN> <877cguhjux.fsf@HIDDEN> <87y196lctq.fsf@HIDDEN> <87o79wl28x.fsf@HIDDEN> <86zfsz78lg.fsf@HIDDEN> <868qzy1gp7.fsf@HIDDEN> Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 11:29:28 +0200 Message-ID: <877cfi9r47.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:Bav3O5jPlu0rAgGO7HteEys4ME3zu6OtYRfAgGz2dPe1V3GypuQ feH18iYRpDsmnwVn/fkRsRTELKWT8Ab1jZiGBsFdkz06gxVmf1DfQ73IJjktyl/1gtia/26 pwxFnKAVHOhr8pm0U2cZCRAqv/2ZjxqS6Mxm2hmIB+SEhgOVf1FsauNZC3Kc7IYKzrBPLbP Zhxtf8lhTRcKcjUoHjfpQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:DRkmcjkqm6c=;UTSKex6/R23i3reIxfvHYSgUGG1 la3TzM6K8FWoZYYBxu7u7VmqNhO9FvWUT/SE5GXGDGS7GNvXhK1gG16PRnUf56hoEfzKnIhEL cfwkfMLQif7pq57id+3kjDqHxjrKSdrtzc7oRZWk0y51khgcR/OdeVHwFILnL2xQWtoaXp+K0 Xa3LqIPDAihE9sUXU3UrNDpH/u8TQC74iivSDZagINN8jJsDQZCSnEWMmnD7KP7enE1QLUeHX xQC1HiChBW57a3jDLkGq0Z2WJLHZPR0mkn6wjnxcV1DG+DDX98JB3CY/sow9YR4FlCV6OR/ch 8VkXYUchu794Cm1EB5wnIGyJD4MeunPzRZperizH17tXDw54g3IHOdpAXLTh6dJC3JR2Yg5WQ J0xseBcQD5YmZyLIpY+bvkbqz7uxHTisuAKAu7YOWQPF1mAX4rKRBn07BMbbzvtD5Y/1L13Yr gzshDbGPD4fW09CCd+ork2qUwuZyd7DqCJy05y8gD8vnFO65xtK7JfyhEdeoJr85ICZxX8Qwg Ck7/3O6NuBxwG16aVBPtuxEx24aOxFkTE1/RkHNDs3/Jau+fqhFkYKcvgvi3o7UoTtevz5exk jHIlNT4y79UK5EhiFwQTQf2Krc5VfAqJOxfTZaQ6p5iQ/2luFv8VvRUY0Rep5kJO6kQpIGmeK FEe715Rg2J49PeynpYVN664+EPGhOJq+t+8rlhbEBXlwwxJYBRju7h+t9ceFQt2SxkObRsvvY SR3LLQgqFc4H4W6w5RexcOYRcH0RhvpyagTX+jpOMBhsGBIvhO/fV+J6ELPtUuHv1kFOf9lo8 mYCMC2OQoN4cMpkB2AhGG+FzOhJyZL2bmGEeOxfPhunaU= X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) 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, 25 May 2024 10:41:40 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Ping! Ping! Can we please make some progress here? I haven't noticed any problems with the current version of the patch, so if it were up to me, I'd install it. (The caveat about my ignorance of widget-inline-p remains, however.) Content analysis details: (3.9 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [212.227.17.21 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (stephen.berman[at]gmx.net) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [212.227.17.21 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS [94.134.95.181 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 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, 25 May 2024 10:41:40 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Ping! Ping! Can we please make some progress here? I haven't noticed any problems with the current version of the patch, so if it were up to me, I'd install it. (The caveat about my ignorance of widget-inline-p remains, however.) Content analysis details: (1.9 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [212.227.17.21 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS [94.134.95.181 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [212.227.17.21 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (stephen.berman[at]gmx.net) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager On Sat, 25 May 2024 10:41:40 +0300 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> wrote: > Ping! Ping! Can we please make some progress here? I haven't noticed any problems with the current version of the patch, so if it were up to me, I'd install it. (The caveat about my ignorance of widget-inline-p remains, however.) Steve Berman >> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, maurooaranda@HIDDEN >> Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 10:22:35 +0300 >> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> >>=20 >> Ping! Any further comments, or is there agreement to install the >> proposed patch? >>=20 >> > From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> >> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >> > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:47:26 +0200 >> >=20 >> > On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:45:21 +0200 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.= net> wrote: >> >=20 >> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:37:58 +0200 Stephen Berman >> > > <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: >> > > >> > >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:07:43 -0300 Mauro Aranda >> > >> <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes: >> > >>> >> > >>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:58:44 -0300 >> > >>>>> Cc: 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >> > >>>>> From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda@HIDDEN> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> On 6/4/24 06:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 69942 <at> debbugs.gnu.org >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:21:27 +0200 >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:40:36 +0100 Stephen Berman >> > >>>>> <stephen.berman@HIDDEN> wrote: >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >>> Ok, I've gotten further with implementing disinguishin= g by faces >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >>> selected (chosen) and unselected radio buttons in radi= o-button-choice >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >>> widgets and check boxes in checklist widgets, see the = attached patch. >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >>> Initial tests seem ok, but it definitely needs more te= sting. >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> Any comments on this patch for using a widget-unselecte= d face?=C2=A0 I have >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 >> been detained from further testing this past week, but = can now resume. >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 > >> > >>>>>=C2=A0 > Mauro, any further comments? >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Hi Eli and Stephen, >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Please forgive me, for the past 2 weeks I haven't been able to d= o any >> > >>>>> computer stuff.=C2=A0 If it's OK, please give me until the weeke= nd so I >> > >>>>> can catch up with this and the other 2 bug reports by Stephen. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Mauro, were you able to find time to look into this and the other= 2 >> > >>>> bugs? >> > >>> >> > >>> I have, just now.=C2=A0 The patch looks good to me.=C2=A0 It'll be= great if >> > >>> Stephen can add some documentation to the manual, so it stays upda= ted. >> > >>> If not, I can do that in a few days. >> > >> >> > >> Sure, I'll add documentation and post it here for approval before >> > >> pushing the changes. >> > > >> > > I've encountered some problems with the patch. One is that it breaks >> > > the display of all face attributes in the customize-face buffer. I'= ve >> > > determined the part of the patch that triggers this, though I haven't >> > > yet figured out just why this bit of code breaks the display. Also,= it >> > > appears that the widget-unselected face does not completely replace >> > > widget-inactive where it's intended to do so, but I need to do more >> > > testing and debugging here to find out why. Until I've fixed these >> > > issues the patch is not suitable for installing, so I'm also holding= off >> > > with the accompanying documentation. (But in preparation for the >> > > documentation I looked more closely at the Widget manual and found >> > > several typos and other issues, for which I opened bug#70502.) >> >=20 >> > The breakage in displaying all face attributes in the customize-face >> > buffer was caused by the invocation of `(widget-specify-selected child= )' >> > in widget-checklist-add-item in the cond-clause satisfying >> > `(widget-inline-p type t)'. I still don't understand why it has this >> > effect, and I have to admit that I don't understand what an inline >> > widget is. But simply omitting the invocation of >> > `(widget-specify-selected child)' at this point in the patch does avoid >> > the customize-face breakage and I have not noticed any problems due to >> > this omission. >> >=20 >> > As for the problematic interaction between the widget-unselected and >> > widget-inactive faces, this seems to have been due to my having copied >> > most of the definition of widget-specify-unselected from that of >> > widget-specify-inactive, and specifically, copying the overlay priorit= y. >> > In the attached patch, widget-specify-unselected now uses a lower >> > overlay priority than the one used in widget-specify-inactive, and in = my >> > tests this yields the desired results: the labels of active checkboxes >> > and radio-buttons have widget-unselected face but when these widgets a= re >> > deactivated, the labels have widget-inactive face. >> >=20 >> > Another change I've made in the attached patch is to have the default >> > value of widget-unselected face inherit from widget-inactive instead of >> > inheriting from shadow face, like widget-inactive does by default. Th= is >> > way, if a user customizes widget-inactive, that will also apply by >> > default to widget-unselected, thus retaining the current default widget >> > UI where the labels of checkboxes and radio-buttons have widget-inacti= ve >> > face. (Thus, the "desired results" in the preceding paragraph are only >> > visible when widget-unselected face is customized to differ from >> > widget-unselected face.) >> >=20 >> > Finally, regarding documentation of widget-unselected face in the Widg= et >> > manual, I think it would be helpful for the documentation to mention t= he >> > use case that motivated introducing it (following Mauro's suggestion to >> > use a face instead of a defcustom), namely, to visually distinguish the >> > labels of unselected and inactive widgets. Here is what I suggest: >> >=20 >> > @deffn Face widget-unselected >> > Face used for unselected widgets. This face is also used on the text >> > labels of radio-button and checkbox widgets. >> >=20 >> > The default value inherits @code{widget-inactive} face. If you want to >> > visually distinguish the labels of unselected active radio-button or >> > checkbox widgets from the labels of unselected inactive widgets, >> > customize this face to a non-default value. >> > @end deffn >> >=20 >> > Since the recent widget.texi changes that include documenting >> > widget-inactive face have not yet been merged to master, I haven't >> > included the propopsed documentaton of widget-unselected in the attach= ed >> > patch, but if approved, will of course add it after the merge. >> >=20 >> > Steve Berman >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.