> Yes, it would mean that existing customization would change, but I'd
> argue this can be justified. The current setup does not allow a user
> to customize the face other than to set it to an already defined
> face. Making it a propper face definition will allow much more
> standard and flexible customization.
But the user can define a new face and set the variable to that face.
So, I don't see a limitation.
The VM documentation makes a big deal of the fact that VM uses face
variables rather than faces themselves. So, there is likely to be
quite a big hooplah if we make a change like this.
> Yes, it would mean that existing customization would change, but I'd
> argue this can be justified. The current setup does not allow a user
> to customize the face other than to set it to an already defined
> face. Making it a propper face definition will allow much more
> standard and flexible customization.
But the user can define a new face and set the variable to that face.
So, I don't see a limitation.
The VM documentation makes a big deal of the fact that VM uses face
variables rather than faces themselves. So, there is likely to be
quite a big hooplah if we make a change like this.