From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#18285: 24.3.92; A combination of `display' on text and `invisible' and `before/after-string' leads to the before/after string being displayed twice Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 00:01:59 +0400 Message-ID: <53F7A1B7.2080607@yandex.ru> References: <86d2bypwx1.fsf@yandex.ru> <83k365defw.fsf@gnu.org> <53F5FD0B.1070800@yandex.ru> <83ppftc2kv.fsf@gnu.org> <53F6130A.5090102@yandex.ru> <83mwaxbze5.fsf@gnu.org> <53F695CF.1040606@yandex.ru> <83bnrdauwa.fsf@gnu.org> <53F72C7F.7050108@yandex.ru> <83sikomz1a.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1408737809 26431 80.91.229.3 (22 Aug 2014 20:03:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 18285@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 22 22:03:21 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XKv3R-0000ss-9f for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 22:03:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39037 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XKv3Q-0001FQ-MK for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:03:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51132) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XKv3G-0001EP-L4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:03:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XKv39-0000I3-5d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:03:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42847) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XKv39-0000Hv-2Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:03:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XKv38-0003Xl-8M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:03:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Dmitry Gutov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:03:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 18285 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 18285-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B18285.140873773113541 (code B ref 18285); Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:03:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 18285) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Aug 2014 20:02:11 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49790 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XKv2I-0003WL-JF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:02:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170]:49922) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XKv2F-0003Vs-Lm for 18285@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:02:09 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l4so10042216lbv.15 for <18285@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:02:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dGX9jBmVrYWqFZEzlvFFWPCjmZU43cIBPC3kYzdnTj8=; b=go2yETZsACu1Lv0fLaFiTIMN/1vnscGCZJcM9IW3ON9djDYrkE1a8ZvAGa/d4mVql5 oHhvRmphYjcyfb8+225J9DxhkPd7mNrcQAggvFE1guH9ss/3adYc39E8Bo4uRGpCf+19 qyqhOcSenowi3RKzDEYKxTZ3UV0D6mOTN+p7lmAjHjtQD4JjwydmU5tDAgyXZQZNpyxz 2t0iXwWCgI/u3anfTjhqbDzeYWiR0HfR6sQi3qhPMqez4oaZ1vS7a2pNcm6i1Y9EPmR3 7nXDkKjWmgIrCYCxr2Vl9tO7TTumeFd9vsqkFeecz52AE1cAkOI05/WkG80One5f/zVf +Hwg== X-Received: by 10.112.72.106 with SMTP id c10mr4000694lbv.100.1408737721449; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([178.252.98.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t3sm48498613lby.22.2014.08.22.13.01.59 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 In-Reply-To: <83sikomz1a.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x 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:92611 Archived-At: On 08/22/2014 05:31 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > If that's what people want, it's an easy change. Can't say for all people, but it seems like a good idea to me. > But the question is, > won't that cause overlay strings not to be displayed in some cases? The reverse, maybe? Making `invisible' inactive means something might become visible, right? But I'd have to see some examples. >> If `display' takes priority over `invisible', I would expect >> >> (let ((pt (point))) >> (insert (propertize "a" 'display "bbb")) >> (let ((o (make-overlay pt (point)))) >> (overlay-put o 'after-string "foo\nbar"))) >> >> and >> >> (let ((pt (point))) >> (insert (propertize "a" 'display "bbb")) >> (let ((o (make-overlay pt (point)))) >> (overlay-put o 'invisible t) >> (overlay-put o 'after-string "foo\nbar"))) >> >> to be rendered the same. > > The question is what would you expect from the second example, if it > used before-string there? Should the before-string be displayed or > shouldn't it? Since invisible makes the beginning of the overlay > disappear, under your suggestion it won't be displayed. I think I'm suggesting the reverse, no? And anyway, with the current logic, both examples render the `before-string' if I use it there just fine. I see no reason for that that to change.