Re: [PATCH] Fontification for inline src blocks

[Sébastien Miquel]

Timothy writes:

> In src blocks, you have the org-block-begin-line face applied. This (in
> any sensible theme) has the same background as org-block.
>

I might be confused by my own config, but that doesn't seem to be the
case. Unless customized, the =org-block-begin-line= inherits from
org-meta-line, and the org-block documentation does specify that it
applies *inside* blocks.

I personaly dislike any inline change of background color. It makes
some sense for the python code, since it isn't org anymore (indeed,
the fontification is done in another buffer), but the src_lang, and
the result part are just org syntax.

Here's an example of a reasonable -- I hope -- use of those faces.

> > The ~org-src-font-lock-fontify-block~ function could be modified to
> > take an optional =inline= argument. When =t=, it should not set the
> > =multiline= font property. Although this is very minor, it would allow
> > one to easily advice this function to behave differently in inline src
> > blocks. For example, to not use the =org-block= face in this case.
> >       
> I don't see where the multiline property is currently set, would you mind
> pointing it out to me?
>     
    
      Right at the end of ~org-src-font-lock-fontify-block~. The
      property
      is =font-lock-multiline=.
      
    
> I'm going to be using the original symbols in my configuration anyway
> because I think they're nicer, but clearly this is contentious. I'd want
> to hear from more people on this.
>     
    If results prettification were disabled by
      default, There would be much
      less contention.
      
    
> > Since ~prettify-symbols~ seems to be raising some usability concerns,
> > perhaps ~org-inline-src-prettify-results~ should default to ~nil~.
> > It'd be unlike org to hide things from the user in the default
> > configuration.
> >       
> This seems somewhat sensible to me, but I must say that {{{results()}}}
> is /ugly/ and I suspect that many users would like the effect, but a
> minority will be aware of this option. Perhaps this is worth doing
> anyway.
>     
    I agree. But org-mode is ugly by default, so
      that is consistent.
      
    
> So are you suggesting I do or don't create new faces for this?
>     
    You should create new faces yes. I do not
      know whether one or two faces is
      best. 
      
      Regards,
    
-- 
Sébastien Miquel