From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrew Kurn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10072: 23.3; invisible text Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:03:21 -0800 Message-ID: <20111121000321.GA19808@sfu.ca> References: <20111118191436.GA21091@sfu.ca> <20111120102459.GB12774@sfu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1321833842 27004 80.91.229.12 (21 Nov 2011 00:04:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:04:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10072@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 21 01:03:58 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RSHMb-0003Gy-KP for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:03:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59992 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RSHMa-000288-Ud for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:03:56 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55150) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RSHMY-000283-4p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:03:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RSHMX-0002Oa-08 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:03:54 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:57980) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RSHMW-0002OU-NP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:03:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RSHNe-0001Ld-Kr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:05:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Andrew Kurn Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:05:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10072 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10072-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10072.13218338775149 (code B ref 10072); Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:05:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10072) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Nov 2011 00:04:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RSHNF-0001Kz-Ec for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:04:37 -0500 Original-Received: from pobox.sfu.ca ([142.58.101.28]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RSHNC-0001Kp-5u for 10072@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:04:35 -0500 Original-Received: from fraser.sfu.ca (fraser.sfu.ca [142.58.101.25]) by pobox.sfu.ca (8.13.6/8.13.5/SFU-6.0G) with ESMTP id pAL03LLk002027 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:03:22 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: (from kurn@localhost) by fraser.sfu.ca (8.13.8+Sun/8.14.3/SFU-6.0C) id pAL03LGC020295; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:03:21 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:05:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:54105 Archived-At: On Sun 20 Nov 2011 15:30 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > Let me propose this wording: > > ----------- [. . .] > > --------- > > Thanks. I installed the text below instead (which is closer to what > really happens). > Sorry, but I didn't receive this latest version. Could you re-send it? > > As an opinion, I add that it would be more intuitive if it worked > > differently -- the way described in the original example -- but > > I can live with this once it is clearly explained. (The problem > > is, of course, that ^X= should always name a visible character, > > and the one that the cursor is over.) > > The use of a block cursor that covers the "next visible char" indeed > tends to make people assume that point is right before that visible > char, but if you use a different cursor this is much less true. > Agreed. > In any case the driving factor is to try and avoid the case where > self-insert-command inserts invisible text, which is also > very confusing. Another advantage of the current behavior is that it > lets the author choose where to place point, by setting > stickiness appropriately, so you can get Emacs to indeed place the > cursor right in front of the next visible char. Yes, I understand your thinking. Right this moment, I don't have access to the latest version of Emacs, so I am not sure of the relevance of this remark: However, I was experimenting with invisibility in overlays and I found it was possible to insert invisible text. I suspect that the philosophy of the command-loop-move-point thingy is to move point so that invisible text will not be inserted in /any/ case. So there's another possible bug. > > >> The code that moves point out of invisible chunks of text does not > >> always work, indeed, because it is only applied to the current > >> buffer (or maybe the selected-window?) after a command. > > Yes, I see. This might need clarification in the text also. > > Fundamentally it's a bug, and I generally don't like to document bugs. On this point I disagree with you very strongly. It's much /more/ important to document bugs than any other aspect of the code. I have told several students this from time to time, and, like you, they tend to resist the idea. I gather that there is no great push on to remedy this behavior, so this bug may hang around for some time . . . Anyhow, I'm pretty happy with my improved understanding, so I'm grateful for your help. Are you a volunteer? I guess that FSF doesn't have enough money to employ a staff of programmers to deal with this sort of correspondence. Andrew