> So you are saying that you don't like the new appearance? The Subject
> says "broke visuals", which sounds like a much more serious problem.
Well, "broke" may be wrong term, here, but lot of themes and packages crafted
in a way to display things like that, and now all of those things displayed accordingly
to a new setting, which in turn means that:
a) package maintainers should update *all* their packages to look like before the change, and
b) maybe Emacs could treat `nil` here as "do not affect", and specify symbols to set this to different
settings, like `:extend t` or `:extend 'EOL`, and `:extend 'noextend` to disable. Though, I do not
know how code was changed, so maybe there's no way to treat `nil` as "do not affect".
Hi Eli and Martin:
I have seen these reports and also the ones in reddit. Do you think that
we should/must/can do anything about?
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:53:21AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Andrey Orst <andreyorst@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:00:38 +0300
>>
>> Somewhat last checkout from master brought the change of face
>> attributes, adding new `:extend` attribute, which make all themes, and
>> packages like Magit display weirdly. By this I mean that before the
>> change, some faces were set up to extend highlighting beyond EOL, but
>> now all of those faces are not doing this. I've first reported this to
>> the theme package I'm using:
>> https://github.com/hlissner/emacs-doom-themes/issues/342 but I think
>> that this should be handled by emacs itself, because if not it will
>> result in the duplicated or extra code in themes fro different Emacs
>> versions. This reddit post has some screenshots of what I mean:
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/diahh1/emacs_27_update_changed_how_highlighted_lines/
>
>The screenshots you posted don't clearly explain the problem. Some of
>them seem actually identical before and after the change, and with
>others I don't think I see the problem.
>
>So please explain what exactly is incorrect or "weird" in the visual
>appearance after the change. Specifically, why the faces in question
>need to be extended past EOL?
>
>Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Andrey Listopadov