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#22320: Overlays with an 'invisible property break stacking of overlay faces Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 22:12:42 +0200 Message-ID: <83si291745.fsf@gnu.org> References: <568D5721.7060709@live.com> <83io352xmm.fsf@gnu.org> <568E9A6A.2050201@live.com> <568EA223.4060805@live.com> <83y4c11auh.fsf@gnu.org> <568EB762.20605@live.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1452197623 19831 80.91.229.3 (7 Jan 2016 20:13:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 20:13:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 22320@debbugs.gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 07 21:13:28 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 1aHGvx-0006BH-PN for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 21:13:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60872 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGvx-0000I3-8m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:13:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44410) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGvj-0008Sp-Jc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:13:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGvf-0003Ou-1h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:13:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:53805) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGve-0003OX-K3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:13:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGve-0001eO-Fy for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:13:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:13:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22320 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 22320-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22320.14521975626311 (code B ref 22320); Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:13:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 22320) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jan 2016 20:12:42 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42025 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGvK-0001dj-2D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:12:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53081) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGvI-0001dW-EZ for 22320@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:12:40 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGv8-0003DH-JV for 22320@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:12:35 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52607) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGv8-0003DD-GN; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:12:30 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2010 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aHGv7-0003As-QD; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:12:30 -0500 In-reply-to: <568EB762.20605@live.com> (message from =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel on Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:07:14 -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:111336 Archived-At: > Cc: 22320@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Clément Pit--Claudel > Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:07:14 -0500 > > I find the current situation more confusing, as it introduces many inconsistencies. Inheriting the face of the first hidden character, and applying it to each dot in the ellipsis, seems a lot more consistent to me (and it does feel predictable). I don't see how it would be less confusing: the invisible characters are invisible, so figuring out why some ellipses are in black, others in blue, still others have some non-default background colors, and some use a different font, sounds like mission impossible to me: you don't see the text that gives the ellipsis its looks. > The same problems exist for composition, but keeping the properties of the first character seems to work well there; maybe we could consider harmonizing both behaviors? I'm not sure I understand what exactly are you proposing to do. We cannot treat invisible text like we treat character compositions, each one invokes a very different machinery with distinct and very different features.