> > There are many diverse solutions [better ways to show ^L] > > on the web, but they need to become part of emacs out of > > the box.
> Filing an enhancement request through a bug report is one way to try to improve > vanilla Emacs, but discussion about such requests is typically more limited and > less fruitful than discussion in emacs-de...@gnu.org.
> Reasons: (1) more people subscribe to emacs-devel, (2) people tend to look to > bug-gnu-em...@gnu.org for bug reports, not for enhancement requests, (3) > enhancement requests are sometimes forgotten, even if not overlooked initially.
Thank you for the thoughtful and long reply about this.
I'll consider subscribing to the emacs dev mailing list.
I suppose the past effort on this issue went to wish-list heaven. LOL.
Richard Stallman, from my interaction with him in the past 2 years, and some reading of his post in emacs dev, i'm starting to find him very annoying. It appears to me, he's been sitting on his fat ass, completely out of touch as a coder for at least 10 years, have basically no knowledge of modern languages and technologies, but pushes and dictates his politics.
The FSF's insistence of signing of legal paper to accept code contribution is one huge obstacle too, for whatever good or bad reasons they need to do it.
... the more i look into the emacs improvement issue, the more i start to think forking is almost the only way. The Mac world really did great job, with Aquamacs emacs and Carbon emacs, and precedent ports, but ultimately mac is less than 5% of market share that puts a upper bound on what it can do to influence the emacs community, even if extremely successful. (to my chagrin, most emacs regulars here, i realized thru discussion in the past 2 years, that they know almost nothing about the social situation of emacs on the Mac.) The mac emacs community, due partly also to political reasons, are quite separate from other main emacs community. (having their own mailing list etc) So, cross communication don't happen much. This is partly due to the FSF and Richard Stallman's politics and Apple's Mac commercial background. The guy who wrote aquaemacs emacs, from the few exchange i had with him in 2008 or 2007 while i subscribed to the mac emacs list, i don't find him much of a respectable person. He, incessantly ask for donation, behaves in a nice politician way, and seems to behave in a way so that he is the only person to lead a modern emacs. (you can check the aquaemacs emacs source code to see some element of his stance) When i discussed with him about modernization, he seems to dismiss and badmouth it, yet implements all the ideas himself, and confine it to the Mac community as much as possible.
There's Lennart Borgman's emacsw32. I haven't had a windows machine since about 2006, so i haven't got into that community. I think it is a viable and powerful road to a modern emacs, simply due to the fact it is for Windows and has a usable out-of-box binary download. One major problem is that Lennart considered the emacsw32 as some type of emacs add-on, as opposed to “Download here and use right away”. Its home page is complex with philosophies and patches and multiple explanations and technicalities. So, basically, emacsw32 becomes something for existing emacs users only.
Lennart is on the emacs dev mailing list. One of his philosophy about emacs is that the Alt key should be compatible with Window's standard behavior (it invokes menu). This is a great stance, but is at odds with the typical emacs fanatics. Lennart is also a quite type of guy. (it goddamn pains me that each time i need to mention his name and find the correct spelling, i have to go to my own emacs page because he almost fucking make it a point not to stick out his name as authorship where he SHOULD, as a matter of publishing ethic. (he probably think it is a modesty. LOL my fucking ass.)) I presume his role in the emacs dev community is suppressed by the situation into another insignificant odd-ends emacs variations creator and wish-list maker.
----
frequently, whenever i use some open source software, often am amazed at what kind absolute idiot created the user interface. And you constantly hear the linux fanatics incessantly discuss and fight about how to improve their usability for the masses yet going nowhere. Linux, a free product, with its desktop(S) has been around since 1998 with huge brouhaha in mainstream media, today, it is still some 2% user base. What a fat ass to ridicule upon.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:24:28 -0800, "Drew Adams" <drew.ad...@oracle.com> wrote: > Like it or not, the inescapable place to promote possible improvements > to vanilla Emacs is emacs-de...@gnu.org (not help-gnu-emacs). If you > are truly interested in changing vanilla Emacs, then emacs-devel is > the mountain pass that you must climb.
> Lowland tavern discussion among comrades who agree can make one feel > good, but it is no substitute for scaling the mountain and confronting > the monstrous pass guardians. Only those with the keys to the pass can > unbar the way. C'est la viemacs.
Heheh, very picturesque description of what it takes to contribute.
Wonderful writing, as we have become accustomed to expect from your posts, Drew :)
frequently, whenever i read some post by Xah Lee, often am amazed at what kind absolute idiot created it. And you constantly hear Xah incessantly discuss and fight about how to improve Emacs usability for the masses yet going nowhere. Xah Lee, a fat green troll, with his mad ideas has been around since 1998 with huge experience in Elisp, today, his Emacs Odyssay 2010 it is still some 0.0000000002% user base. What a fat ass to ridicule upon.
Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes: > Richard Stallman, from my interaction with him in the past 2 years, > and some reading of his post in emacs dev, i'm starting to find him > very annoying. It appears to me, he's been sitting on his fat ass, > completely out of touch as a coder for at least 10 years, have > basically no knowledge of modern languages and technologies, but > pushes and dictates his politics.
> The FSF's insistence of signing of legal paper to accept code > contribution is one huge obstacle too, for whatever good or bad > reasons they need to do it.
> ... the more i look into the emacs improvement issue, the more i start > to think forking is almost the only way.
There have been forks, and they usually turned out to be single-person projects. Feel free to do your own fork. However, you should not expect other people to join.
Whatever you may think of Richard's people skills (and he does not regard them all too highly himself), yours are much worse. You come across as a pompous ass, rude, impolite and non-cooperative rather than merely headstrong, and you have no significant vision or record (in particularly with Emacs coding) to show that could compensate for that.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:44 AM, cmr.P...@gmail.com <cmr.P...@gmail.com> wrote: > frequently, whenever i read some post by N N, often am amazed at > what kind absolute idiot created it. And you constantly hear N N > incessantly discuss and fight about how to improve Emacs usability for > the masses yet going nowhere. N N, a fat green troll, with his mad > ideas has been around since 1998 with huge experience in Elisp, today, > his Emacs Odyssay 2010 it is still some 0.0000000002% user base. What > a fat ass to ridicule upon.
> Andrey Paramonov
Andrey, You are not allowed to attach persons here.
If you have trouble with your feelings against another person Internet is not where you should display those feelings. Remember that it is your personal feelings toward that other person. It is not a truth.
You are of course allowed to express different ideas, but that is not what you are doing here.
> Richard Stallman, from my interaction with him in the past 2 years, > and some reading of his post in emacs dev, i'm starting to find him > very annoying.
Don't worry about it. People have been finding RMS very annoying for several decades. ;-)
> It appears to me, he's been sitting on his fat ass, completely out of > touch as a coder for at least 10 years, have basically no knowledge of > modern languages and technologies, but pushes and dictates his > politics.
Well, he has this habit of being right about things, sometimes years before most people are even aware of them.
> The FSF's insistence of signing of legal paper to accept code > contribution is one huge obstacle too, for whatever good or bad reasons > they need to do it.
It's irritating, yes, but hardly a huge obstacle. It's necessary because, under USA law (so I'm told), a copyright lawsuit can only proceed with the active involvement of all copyright holders. The advantage, from your point of view, is that anytime anybody violates the copyright of your code, you've got the legal resources of the FSF to back you up.
> The guy who wrote aquaemacs emacs, from the few exchange ..... > i don't find him much of a respectable person.
[ .... ]
> (it goddamn pains me that each time i need to mention his [somebody > else's] name and find the correct spelling, i have to go to my own > emacs page because he almost ****ing make it a point not to stick out > his name as authorship where he SHOULD, as a matter of publishing > ethic. (he probably think it is a modesty. LOL my ****ing ass.))
[ .... ]
> frequently, whenever i use some open source software, often am amazed > at what kind absolute idiot created the user interface.
Looks like you're having a bad day. Cheer up, and think of that tiny minority of free software hackers who actually do a passable job. ;-)
> > Richard Stallman, from my interaction with him in the past 2 years, > > and some reading of his post in emacs dev, i'm starting to find him > > very annoying.
> Don't worry about it. People have been finding RMS very annoying for > several decades. ;-)
> > It appears to me, he's been sitting on his fat ass, completely out of > > touch as a coder for at least 10 years, have basically no knowledge of > > modern languages and technologies, but pushes and dictates his > > politics.
> Well, he has this habit of being right about things, sometimes years > before most people are even aware of them.
Alan, stop that mentality.
Richard Stallman, contributed to society in 2 significant ways. One is his coding, producing many major software, such as emacs, gcc, etc. The other, with far more greater impact, and is the reason he is remembered in human animal history, is the creation of FSF with its GPL.
His technical, coding, contribution is unquestionably a positive contribution. His “free” software movement is, however, questionable. The reason that society recognized this social contribution, is partly, if not significantly, due to the fact that he is successful in spreading his philosophy. For example, to illustrate, if Hitler was successful, today he would be a hero, leader, founder, as opposed to a criminal. As another illustration, if US lost the war to UK, then the “founding fathers” of US would be considered criminals today who got punished by death. In fact, many of the leaders in the US at the time is doing quite morally questionable things besides treason.
Richard Stallman, also did some morally questionable things before he started FSF. In one perspective, you can consider him a software criminal. Lucky for him that at the time there was no software law yet. Else, he'd be in jail before he had a chance to mouth his manifesto. So, in this perspective, he is someone who breaks the law, got dissed by MIT, got pissed, with vengeance he starts the FSF to recoup his ego.
The above is one perspective. A perspective neutral, where human animal's behavior is considered foremost sans a context of any particular moral system.
> > The FSF's insistence of signing of legal paper to accept code > > contribution is one huge obstacle too, for whatever good or bad reasons > > they need to do it.
> It's irritating, yes, but hardly a huge obstacle. It's necessary > because, under USA law (so I'm told), a copyright lawsuit can only > proceed with the active involvement of all copyright holders. The > advantage, from your point of view, is that anytime anybody violates the > copyright of your code, you've got the legal resources of the FSF to > back you up.
The FSF requirement of legal paper signing is a significant problem for FSF's software to progress forward.
First, let's presume that it is something that needs to be done in order for FSF to protect GPL.
Now, imagine, there are 2 software A and B. In A, there are paper works going by postal mail, as parts of how A grow code. In B, there is no such.
Today, thanks to FSF, vast majority of open source software uses model B. Just look at all code at Google Code, SourceForge, or numerous other open source code depositories. Today, the internet age where people watch movies online and all sort of online transactions, the paper work and postal mail agreement model is a major time drain and impetus killing.
to help see this, imagine, if all Open Source software today, those hosted by Google Code, Source Forge, all linux development, or any code on emacswiki, requires a postal mail legal paper signing before the code can be published, then, to what degree do you think will slow down the progress? Can you now see?
So, now you see, GNU emacs's requirement for signing legal document thru paper mail is a significant obstacle for GNU emacs to progress.
I have thought about how to remedy this situation for few minutes yesterday, but didn't see any solution or conclusion. First, we presume that it is in fact necessary for the paper work, as FSF says so. Ok, then what can we do? I don't really know. If the paper work is necessary, and of course FSF is practically the only one to protect the GPL, in a sense allowing the thousands other open source or “free” software to progress freely without paperwork. It appears to me we hav run into a inherent “unsolvable” problem. I was thinking, perhaps GNU software can be considered as kinda sacrifice, by requiring the legal paper work in order to protect GPL for the whole open source community, but meanwhile sacrifice GNU software's progress due to the very paperwork bureaucracy... but this can't go on for long, because eventually GNU's software will become so bad that people all uses other's open source software, and if that is so, then FSF's GPL protection role will rot out too, because only a very small percentage of people is actually using FSF's “free” software...
The above paragraph is a bit of rambling. In any case, i do doubt the necessity for FSF to require the paper work. Maybe it was important in 1990s or earlier, but probably not today. I even question if it was necessary in the 1990s. For example, there was BSD's license. And there's also the much simpler “public domain” release. Arguably these does not propagate the concept behind FSF. (that is GPL, of which Richard says is “fighting fire with fire”.) But in any case, consider today, with huge participation of google, apple computer, and quite several large organization and commercial entities participating in open source projects in major ways, it is question today that even GPL itself, is needed at all. Richard has been successful in his ideal of software. Today, that is largely already achieved to the extend that such concept can benefit society. (see note below) So, in this perspective, FSF can in fact can today close shop and the existing opene source and “free” software world may not fare worse.
Note: in the above, i didn't even discuss whether OpenSource or “‘Free’ Software” concept is it itself good for society. There are many debates on this.
For me, i believe that “‘Free’ Software” idea is indeed a good idea, but not so much how Richard paints it. The gist is that, software is a piece of good, and by the very nature of software, it can be copied without much cost. So, the traditional copyright law, usually allowing one single copy, may not be of the best interest to human animals as a whole, long term. In “‘Free’ software” ideal, software industry more becomes a service oriented industry, where coders gets paid to modify and customize existing software. This is also arguably a better business model when compared with existing copyright software laws or practices, where app is sold as a some type of permission to use.
> > The guy who wrote aquaemacs emacs, from the few exchange ..... > > i don't find him much of a respectable person.
> [ .... ]
> > (it goddamn pains me that each time i need to mention his [somebody > > else's] name and find the correct spelling, i have to go to my own > > emacs page because he almost ****ing make it a point not to stick out > > his name as authorship where he SHOULD, as a matter of publishing > > ethic. (he probably think it is a modesty. LOL my ****ing ass.))
> [ .... ]
> > frequently, whenever i use some open source software, often am amazed > > at what kind absolute idiot created the user interface.
> Looks like you're having a bad day. Cheer up, and think of that tiny > minority of free software hackers who actually do a passable job. ;-)
No, i didn't have a bad day. I get very irritated by idiots, in the same sense most tech geekers gets irrigated by “dumb users” or how society is being “dumbed down”. It usually don't effect my mood. I enjoy teaching, and i enjoy fighting with socially ignorant tech geekers, or geekers who's IQ are too low or speak beyond their brain. On this point, you can see some explanation in the following article:
Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes: > His technical, coding, contribution is unquestionably a positive > contribution. His “free” software movement is, however, questionable. > The reason that society recognized this social contribution, is > partly, if not significantly, due to the fact that he is successful in > spreading his philosophy. For example, to illustrate, if Hitler was > successful, today he would be a hero, leader, founder, as opposed to a > criminal. As another illustration, if US lost the war to UK, then the > “founding fathers” of US would be considered criminals today who got > punished by death. In fact, many of the leaders in the US at the time > is doing quite morally questionable things besides treason.
> Richard Stallman, also did some morally questionable things before he > started FSF. In one perspective, you can consider him a software > criminal. Lucky for him that at the time there was no software law > yet.
Huh? What did he do according to your overboarding fantasy? He started the free software movement exactly so that he would not be forced to choose between morals and laws.
> Else, he'd be in jail before he had a chance to mouth his > manifesto.
For what offense?
> So, in this perspective, he is someone who breaks the law, got dissed > by MIT, got pissed, with vengeance he starts the FSF to recoup his > ego.
> The above is one perspective. A perspective neutral, where human > animal's behavior is considered foremost sans a context of any > particular moral system.
Hogwash. Without a context of a moral system _and_ without existing laws (which you claim did not exist at that time) _and_ without having broken any law, calling somebody a criminal ist not "neutral", but rather idiotic.
> I have thought about how to remedy this situation for few minutes > yesterday, but didn't see any solution or conclusion.
Others have thought about those issues for decades. Do you really not understand that statements like those make you appear like a pompous fool without the slightest clue what he is talking about?
> The above paragraph is a bit of rambling. In any case, i do doubt the > necessity for FSF to require the paper work. Maybe it was important in > 1990s or earlier, but probably not today. I even question if it was > necessary in the 1990s. For example, there was BSD's license.
Look, you don't even understand the difference between license types and software ownership. It does not matter what license you pick: the only party allowed to press for compliance is the copyright holder. Via authorship or assignment.
> No, i didn't have a bad day. I get very irritated by idiots,
How do you manage to shave? Mirrors must be very annoying to you.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote: > yesterday, but didn't see any solution or conclusion. First, we > presume that it is in fact necessary for the paper work, as FSF says > so. Ok, then what can we do? I don't really know. If the paper work is > necessary, and of course FSF is practically the only one to protect > the GPL, in a sense allowing the thousands other open source or “free” > software to progress freely without paperwork. It appears to me we hav > run into a inherent “unsolvable” problem. I was thinking, perhaps GNU > software can be considered as kinda sacrifice, by requiring the legal > paper work in order to protect GPL for the whole open source > community, but meanwhile sacrifice GNU software's progress due to the > very paperwork bureaucracy... but this can't go on for long, because > eventually GNU's software will become so bad that people all uses > other's open source software, and if that is so, then FSF's GPL > protection role will rot out too, because only a very small percentage > of people is actually using FSF's “free” software...
I think that you are right when you assume that GPL actually protects the other "free software" too. The key to understand this is that as soon as the other "free software" gets under attach from copyright holders then the GPL software will be much more important.
It is the dynamics that counts here.
However the main current problem in my opinion is the inability to organize and fund ways to develop some of the main free software with a mix of professional and "free time" developers. This could be done if we can fight the new liberals oversimplified view of the economic markets. However the politics are still much on their side so private initiatives like Ubuntu is still the only way. (I am by the way very glad for this initiative. It can perhaps serve as an example of what governements can do - if they want to and are allowed to by the strange economic laws we are under, the new liberal inspired laws.)
<lennart.borg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> yesterday, but didn't see any solution or conclusion. First, we >> presume that it is in fact necessary for the paper work, as FSF says >> so. Ok, then what can we do? I don't really know. If the paper work is >> necessary, and of course FSF is practically the only one to protect >> the GPL, in a sense allowing the thousands other open source or “free” >> software to progress freely without paperwork. It appears to me we hav >> run into a inherent “unsolvable” problem. I was thinking, perhaps GNU >> software can be considered as kinda sacrifice, by requiring the legal >> paper work in order to protect GPL for the whole open source >> community, but meanwhile sacrifice GNU software's progress due to the >> very paperwork bureaucracy... but this can't go on for long, because >> eventually GNU's software will become so bad that people all uses >> other's open source software, and if that is so, then FSF's GPL >> protection role will rot out too, because only a very small percentage >> of people is actually using FSF's “free” software...
> I think that you are right when you assume that GPL actually protects > the other "free software" too. The key to understand this is that as > soon as the other "free software" gets under attach from copyright > holders then the GPL software will be much more important.
> It is the dynamics that counts here.
> However the main current problem in my opinion is the inability to > organize and fund ways to develop some of the main free software with > a mix of professional and "free time" developers. This could be done > if we can fight the new liberals oversimplified view of the economic > markets. However the politics are still much on their side so private > initiatives like Ubuntu is still the only way. (I am by the way very > glad for this initiative. It can perhaps serve as an example of what > governements can do - if they want to and are allowed to by the > strange economic laws we are under, the new liberal inspired laws.)
I got a private note that my use of "new liberals" may be misunderstood. I use it in the European sense, as those who aggressively fight for a laissez-fair economy without ever thinking very much about the actual consequencies, but merely assume that laissez-fair policy fixes everything.
Btw, when i insert a ^L, it automatically become displayed as horizontal line but with the overlay display “Section (Printable Page)”. Is there a way to turn that off? i.e. i just want a line.
> Btw, when i insert a ^L, it automatically become displayed as > horizontal line but with the overlay display "Section (Printable > Page)". Is there a way to turn that off? i.e. i just want a line.
Yes, and it's described in the file and the doc strings of the user options. To quote:
Highlighted string displayed in place of each Control-l (^L) character. If `pp^L-^L-string-function' is non-nil, then the string that function returns is used instead of `pp^L-^L-string'.
* Option `pp^L-^L-string-function':
Function to produce string displayed in place of each Control-l (^L) char. If this is non-nil, then option `pp^L-^L-string' is not used. You can use this option to have a dynamically defined display string. For example, with `foo' as the value, and this definition, a window-width horizontal line is displayed.
(defun foo () (make-string (window-width) ?_))
In the library's Commentary:
Note: If you use option `pp^L-^L-string-function' to define the ^L appearance based on the current window (e.g. its width), then you might want to add command `refresh-pretty-control-l' to variable `window-configuration-change-hook', to automatically update the ^L display whenever you resize the window:
* If you want a different static string from the default, " Section (Printable Page) ", then just customize `pp^L-^L-string'.
* If you want a dynamic string, such as a horizontal line for the full window width, even as the window is resized, then use `pp^L-^L-string-function'. That option can have a function value. If it does, then whatever string that function returns is used.
You can also customize the face used, and prefix and suffix strings to bookend the basic string.
On Feb 26, 11:33 am, Teemu Likonen <tliko...@iki.fi> wrote:
> Anyway, I find your ergonomic Emacs keybindings[1] interesting, and it's > nice that there is code available.
Thank you.
> I found the keybindings too > intrusive, though, so I implemented my own map which only changes > certain cursor movement keys. It's a global minor mode with its own mode > map so it can be turned on and off easily. The code is here:
> Highlighted string displayed in place of each Control-l (^L) character. > If `pp^L-^L-string-function' is non-nil, then the string that function > returns is used instead of `pp^L-^L-string'.
> * Option `pp^L-^L-string-function':
> Function to produce string displayed in place of each Control-l (^L) char. > If this is non-nil, then option `pp^L-^L-string' is not used. > You can use this option to have a dynamically defined display string. > For example, with `foo' as the value, and this definition, a > window-width horizontal line is displayed.
> (defun foo () (make-string (window-width) ?_))
> In the library's Commentary:
> Note: If you use option `pp^L-^L-string-function' to define the ^L > appearance based on the current window (e.g. its width), then you > might want to add command `refresh-pretty-control-l' to variable > `window-configuration-change-hook', to automatically update the ^L > display whenever you resize the window:
> * If you want a different static string from the default, > " Section (Printable Page) ", then just > customize `pp^L-^L-string'.
> * If you want a dynamic string, such as a horizontal line for the > full window width, even as the window is resized, then use > `pp^L-^L-string-function'. That option can have a function value. > If it does, then whatever string that function returns is used.
> You can also customize the face used, and prefix and suffix strings to bookend > the basic string.
Hi Drew,
i'm having some problem customize this.
Basically, all i want is a single horizontal bar, in complete black, that's about 60 chars long. (which is a bit longer than the default)
I tried to customize the string, or the font... basically now and then spend some 30 min but can't achieve this.
i use customize-group. Each time, i have to reload pretty-control-l- mode, then call describe-mode again to see.
The pp^l string i tried 60 spaces, to make it longer.
The pp^l highlight i tried adjust the box, but then i got 2 bars. Then i tried turn off the box and use strick-through... but it became too thin.
Also, i think when box is off and strike thru is on and string is spaces, it doesn't show the strike thru.
Can you tell me what's the setting to use to get what i want? And, would you consider this as default? i.e. just a simple black horizontal line that's about 60 char long.
> On Feb 26, 11:33 am, Teemu Likonen <tliko...@iki.fi> wrote: >> I found the keybindings too intrusive, though, so I implemented my >> own map which only changes certain cursor movement keys. It's a >> global minor mode with its own mode map so it can be turned on and >> off easily. The code is here:
> i'm having some problem customize this. > Basically, all i want is a single horizontal bar, in complete black, > that's about 60 chars long. (which is a bit longer than the default)
> I tried to customize the string, or the font... basically now and then > spend some 30 min but can't achieve this.
I'm guessing it would help to get more familiar with the Customize UI, in particular for faces. It's not ideal, but it is usable once you are familiar with it.
> i use customize-group. Each time, i have to reload pretty-control-l- > mode, then call describe-mode again to see.
To see what? You should never need to do that. Have you tried `M-x refresh-pretty-control-l'?
> The pp^l string i tried 60 spaces, to make it longer. > The pp^l highlight i tried adjust the box, but then i got 2 bars. Then > i tried turn off the box and use strick-through... but it became too > thin.
Emacs offers no way to change the strike-through thickness, AFAIK. I'm guessing (only guessing) that things like strike-through are dependent on the font you choose. And perhaps on your platform (?).
> Also, i think when box is off and strike thru is on and string is > spaces, it doesn't show the strike thru.
It does for me. Perhaps report an Emacs bug for your version and platform.
> Can you tell me what's the setting to use to get what i want? And, > would you consider this as default? i.e. just a simple black > horizontal line that's about 60 char long.
1. Customize face `pp^l-highlight': Remove the boxing.
2. Customize option `pp^L-^L-string': Use a 60-char string of underline characters, e.g. (make-string 60 ?_).
3. `M-x refresh-pretty-control-l'.
In what way doesn't that give you what you described?
Turn Strike-through or Overline on (also) if you want a double line: ==================. Or use a string of spaces, and turn on Underline and/or Overline and/or Strike-through. Each of those lines can be colored, etc. Don't forget to use the Value Menu to turn these attributes on - it's not enough to check the box. This is no different from customizing any face.
I want the default string value to be what it is. It lets users, especially new users, clearly recognize a page separator (and not mistake it for something else). It's easy to customize it to get something different (once you are familiar with Customize ;-)).
The default value practically shouts, "(1) I'm a page separator; (2) I cause page separation when you print too; (3) Customize me, if you think I'm ugly". About the only thing it doesn't advertize is that you can move among pages (`C-x ]' etc.) and otherwise operate on pages.
> > i'm having some problem customize this. > > Basically, all i want is a single horizontal bar, in complete black, > > that's about 60 chars long. (which is a bit longer than the default)
> > I tried to customize the string, or the font... basically now and then > > spend some 30 min but can't achieve this.
> I'm guessing it would help to get more familiar with the Customize UI, in > particular for faces. It's not ideal, but it is usable once you are familiar > with it.
> > i use customize-group. Each time, i have to reload pretty-control-l- > > mode, then call describe-mode again to see.
> To see what? You should never need to do that. Have you tried `M-x > refresh-pretty-control-l'?
> > The pp^l string i tried 60 spaces, to make it longer. > > The pp^l highlight i tried adjust the box, but then i got 2 bars. Then > > i tried turn off the box and use strick-through... but it became too > > thin.
> Emacs offers no way to change the strike-through thickness, AFAIK. I'm guessing > (only guessing) that things like strike-through are dependent on the font you > choose. And perhaps on your platform (?).
> > Also, i think when box is off and strike thru is on and string is > > spaces, it doesn't show the strike thru.
> It does for me. Perhaps report an Emacs bug for your version and platform.
> > Can you tell me what's the setting to use to get what i want? And, > > would you consider this as default? i.e. just a simple black > > horizontal line that's about 60 char long.
> 1. Customize face `pp^l-highlight': Remove the boxing.
> 2. Customize option `pp^L-^L-string': Use a 60-char string of underline > characters, e.g. (make-string 60 ?_).
> 3. `M-x refresh-pretty-control-l'.
> In what way doesn't that give you what you described?
> Turn Strike-through or Overline on (also) if you want a double line: > ==================. Or use a string of spaces, and turn on Underline and/or > Overline and/or Strike-through. Each of those lines can be colored, etc. Don't > forget to use the Value Menu to turn these attributes on - it's not enough to > check the box. This is no different from customizing any face.
> I want the default string value to be what it is. It lets users, especially new > users, clearly recognize a page separator (and not mistake it for something > else). It's easy to customize it to get something different (once you are > familiar with Customize ;-)).
> The default value practically shouts, "(1) I'm a page separator; (2) I cause > page separation when you print too; (3) Customize me, if you think I'm ugly". > About the only thing it doesn't advertize is that you can move among pages (`C-x > ]' etc.) and otherwise operate on pages.
> HTH.
Hi Drew,
Thanks for the help.
It did help. It did help. However, for some reason i'm still getting problems.
Reproduction steps:
1. M-x customize-group , Pretty-Control-L 2. scroll to “Pp^L ^L String Pre” section. Change the value there to 60 spaces. 3. Uncheck the box. Check the underline. Color maroon. 4. Click Save for future session above. 5. Now, the .emacs shows the following:
(custom-set-faces ;; custom-set-faces was added by Custom. ;; If you edit it by hand, you could mess it up, so be careful. ;; Your init file should contain only one such instance. ;; If there is more than one, they won't work right. '(completions-first-difference ((t (:inherit bold :foreground "red")))) '(pp^L-highlight ((((type x w32 mac graphic) (class color)) (:underline "maroon")))) '(show-paren-match ((((class color) (background light)) (:background "azure2")))))
> It did help. It did help. However, for some reason i'm still getting > problems.
> Reproduction steps:
> 1. M-x customize-group , Pretty-Control-L > 2. scroll to “Pp^L ^L String Pre” section. Change the value there to > 60 spaces. > 3. Uncheck the box. Check the underline. Color maroon. > 4. Click Save for future session above. > 5. Now, the .emacs shows the following:
> (custom-set-faces > ;; custom-set-faces was added by Custom. > ;; If you edit it by hand, you could mess it up, so be careful. > ;; Your init file should contain only one such instance. > ;; If there is more than one, they won't work right. > '(completions-first-difference ((t (:inherit bold :foreground > "red")))) > '(pp^L-highlight ((((type x w32 mac graphic) (class color)) > (:underline "maroon")))) > '(show-paren-match ((((class color) (background light)) (:background > "azure2")))))
