From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#1092: compilation-goto-error goes to wrong location when buffer has hidden regions Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:31:39 +0200 Message-ID: <83k2nqadd0.fsf@gnu.org> References: <48E90990.1020101@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451835147 8121 80.91.229.3 (3 Jan 2016 15:32:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 15:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ahyatt@gmail.com, 1092@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 03 16:32:16 2016 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 1aFkdj-0008MD-CM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:32:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41910 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkdi-0005u5-L5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:32:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49177) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkdf-0005tx-P5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:32:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkdW-0001tl-C5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:32:11 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkdW-0001th-8n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:32:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkdW-0006dV-5C for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:32:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:32:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 1092 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 1092-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B1092.145183511025490 (code B ref 1092); Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:32:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 1092) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Jan 2016 15:31:50 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36800 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkdK-0006d3-E4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:31:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57876) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkdJ-0006cs-3g for 1092@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:31:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkdA-0001nn-19 for 1092@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:31:43 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42672) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkd9-0001ni-UD; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:31:39 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2442 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkd8-0008RG-N6; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:31:39 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 01:22:31 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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:111150 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 01:22:31 -0500 > Cc: 1092@debbugs.gnu.org > > > I'd agree that either selective-display should be marked as deprecated, > > or the problem should be fixed. I don't know what the status of > > selective-display is, though - it might be worth bringing this up in > > emacs-devel. > > There are several problems with selective-display: > - first and foremost, the variable provides 2 different features: > - when set to t, it makes CR behave specially (it's a special > line-separator that makes the next line invisible). > - when set to a number, it makes all lines indented deeper than this > number invisible. Why is that a problem? From my POV, it's the same feature in 2 flavors. We have similar stuff all over the place. > - The first use should be declared obsolete because overlays provide > a much better way to do the same thing. There might still be a few > packages out there using this old selective-display thingy but they > really need to move on. I see no reason whatsoever to obsolete this. (We already did, but I think that was a mistake.) It is a much more lightweight feature than overlays (certainly performance-wise, but also in other aspects). The fact that selective-display affects the display engine code in just 3 places, and with almost trivial code, while overlays do that in about 20 places (and need a much heavier and trickier support code) alone speaks volumes, I think. I wish every rarely used display feature was so lightweight as selective-display. > - The second use should be replaced by a minor mode which provides the > same feature using overlays, but nobody bothered to do so. > Maybe because this second use is very rarely useful at all. > So maybe this second use should be just dropped (i.e. made obsolete > without providing an alternative). I would object to dropping it without a good alternative. Anyway, I don't see how this report of a minor bug should trigger such far-reaching conclusions. It took me all of 5 minutes to fix it; we should have done this 7 years ago. I'm sorry we didn't, but better late than never.