RE: [External] : Re: Experimentally unbind M-o on the trunk

[Drew Adams]

> > > > > The M-o key is for face menu and it is better to
> > > > > rethink why is M-o globally set and why not only in the
> > > > > specific mode where those face menus make sense.
> > > >
> > > > Facemenu commands make sense in most modes (nearly all?).
> > >
> > > Did you mean they don't make sense?
> >
> > No, I meant they make sense - you can use them
> > to do what they do.

Sorry, let me clarify.  Perhaps I misspoke.

I didn't really mean to speak about what `M-o' does.
I meant to speak generally, about _facemenu_ -- that
is, the functionality provided by `facemenu.el', and
the part of that functionality that's presented, e.g.,
in menu Edit > Text Properties.

See, in particular, my reply to Clement's question
about font-locked buffers:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-02/msg00640.html

You'll note that, with font-locking turned on, the
particular facemenu features that font-lock can
interfere with are inactive in the menu.  And you'll
note that if you try `M-o' in a font-locked buffer
you'll see this message:

  "Font-lock mode will override any faces you set
   in this buffer"
___

And BTW, I said elsewhere that I would not at all
be opposed to repurposing `M-o': use it for something
else or free it up for 3rd-party use.

I even think that the dialog of `M-o' is confusing.
The prompt doesn't really make clear what the input
possibilities are or what their consequences are.

And if the menu items equivalent to `M-o' inputs are
entirely inhibited when a buffer is font-locked, then
shouldn't `M-o' also be _unavailable_ in that context,
instead of letting you actually _make_ its buffer
changes and just informing you that those changes are
not seen currently because of font-locking? Yes, maybe.

But what should happen to `M-o' is another question,
different from whether (some) facemenu commands can be
used in many/most buffers/modes.  My reply was meant
to be about that more general question.  Facemenu is
more than just `M-o' or those particular menu items.
I was speaking about facemenu, not just its `M-o' part.

I think I made all of this clear in my reply to Clement.

> I wish to understand how is that useful that face
> settings do work in most of modes, but such cannot
> be saved in those same modes.

You're mixing up two things there.

 1. For the first part, see above, and my reply to Clement.

 2. Wrt saving: Saving is what _enriched-mode_ is about,
    it's not what facemenu is about.

Changing text properties (`face', `font-lock-face',
or other properties) is one thing.  Saving face
changes persistently is something else again.
Facemenu is not enriched-mode, and vice versa.

> Let us say in fundamental mode, I can set bold on text,
> but what is the point if I cannot save it as bold.

And that is yet a 3rd point/question.  That's your
confusion or too-narrow view, I think.  Those are
different things, so they naturally have some
different uses.

There are any number of reasons why you might make
some temporary changes in a buffer or, more generally,
in an Emacs session.  You don't necessarily want to
persistently save every change you make.  (That's a
generic "you" - perhaps you, Jean, actually do want
that; dunno.)

Have you ever increased the font size in a buffer
to be able to read/see something easier, without
wanting that change to be saved as your persistent
default font size?  Depending on how you make that
font-size change, it could be a change to the
`default' face.

> How do you mean it that face settings are useful even if
> they cannot be saved? Maybe for real time presentations?

See above.  And yes, presentations are another good
example.