From xemacs-m  Tue Mar 25 11:09:08 1997
Received: from jens.metrix.de (root@jens.metrix.de [194.123.88.124])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA04390
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:09:05 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from jens@localhost) by jens.metrix.de (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA00962; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:52:03 +0100
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: modeline format.
X-Face: Z[@OB)("ZvE?ev~1b+b!0ZUB.$%rh.9qE>dVf>q}Q/V?%d`J3gd!LR\aAZ8<Hwi]xTA(:*c;i3,?K?+rCy*^b$)a,}E?eo},}x2]5LlJysyoUOK"o[>K)'\Ulb7y-7*.If^;rHl['oa)n_M7E6w+LDKMs"G8_`c)uOS1^}.1|8Ill]7X68X-paeUOpBhz<F`B0?~^2Et~GYfw~/0]H]nx4~C_E/_mp#^7Ixc:
Reply-To: jens@lemming0.lem.uni-karlsruhe.de
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Jens Lautenbacher <jens@metrix.de>
Date: 25 Mar 1997 17:52:02 +0100
Message-ID: <m3lo7bhq31.fsf@jens.metrix.de>
Lines: 20
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.33/XEmacs 19.15(beta103)


Can anyone explain to me why the modeline format is like it is?
Everything seems perfectly logical to me, but when it comes to how
glyphs or different faces are realized I really have to take the 
/big bucket/. I don't want to offend anyone, especially as I strongly
suspect that the guy who programmed this did *much* more know what he
did than I usually do when doing xemacsy things... But some
knowledgeable person could please tell me the reasoning behind this:

Why are glyphs and all other advanced features realized by consing a
detached extent with a glyph/string? Why not using just strings with
an (duplicable) extent over this string as usual? 

Thanks for any help,

       jtl




