From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#14582: 24.3.50.1; Strange overlay behavior, when window-start is inside an overlay. Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:08:08 +0200 Message-ID: <83v8x0ohp3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83czk578m0.fsf@gnu.org> <837dab4zmm.fsf@gnu.org> <875ypvcsyf.fsf@web.de> <83k0ea3fci.fsf@gnu.org> <87r18gn1rh.fsf@web.de> <83k0e8z3uo.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0e6xkta.fsf@web.de> <83v8xqvxox.fsf@gnu.org> <87r18ej957.fsf@web.de> <83r18dwnqn.fsf@gnu.org> <875ypor90e.fsf@web.de> <83wni4up6g.fsf@gnu.org> <87pmnvr0l4.fsf@web.de> <83a6ezuu00.fsf@gnu.org> <87wni2ypx7.fsf@web.de> <83tud5ssd4.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkzdj5h3.fsf@web.de> <83fsoosfvn.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsong0ii.fsf@web.de> <83leyfq9ff.fsf@gnu.org> <878rtx6k2t.fsf@web.de> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37523"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, esabof@gmail.com, 14582@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 27 09:09:11 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEcA-0009ag-Tl for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 09:09:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58300 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEc9-0000zF-KQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:09:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49684) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEc2-0000z1-FB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:34672) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEc2-0003l7-6y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEc1-00067u-U8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:09:01 -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, 27 Feb 2022 08:09:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 14582 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 14582-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B14582.164594931323507 (code B ref 14582); Sun, 27 Feb 2022 08:09:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 14582) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2022 08:08:33 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56802 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEbY-000674-Uq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:08:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43916) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEbW-00066p-D1 for 14582@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:08:31 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=45982 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEbR-0003i4-06; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:08:25 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=ZLKJLh29sqdq7hwtnVMsiJEFwhAEcORABWyIMh5WnAI=; b=YZolHYHC3avM A8oIfMqwejWK+Og/VS/w/BEPDg2gEmHmof7M19fKYpZFEEDarYXYRP0K6P2FhIrT4Aszjw9fWWnL3 tSyfzLPHmGf+7zJtl0oDtjqW3O77EGMclE0714RBbBxQh+9dYjVt5JjDZZpegBLpkHz9WbVDoyINK sLw+Kdot7JkZNrcqw6k+oUcApJzERYOa2HgAmrUWf5xLiImUkJAwGaqCPrSmkJV5WpezbUJ6bjTRu o0q4I0GNSZagQ2pWGCT2wsmOt0tQDP9GkmvT0+fBkgqrSL3JVrYu4+Co5P4oOA71Gh8nkaYqlY8ZG hjeWEJAl2CIrgonXn/Rk4A==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3937 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOEbO-0004oX-Cy; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:08:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <878rtx6k2t.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 04:54:02 +0100) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:227705 Archived-At: > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, esabof@gmail.com, 14582@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2022 04:54:02 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Please feel free to submit changes to relevant modes and features to > > use this new variable. I use them only very infrequently, and am not > > annoyed by the issues that started this bug report, so I'm not a good > > candidate for suggesting such changes or testing them in Real Life. > > (I thought as soon as the new variable is demonstrated to be able to > > solve those issues, the patches to the relevant applications will > > follow immediately, either by Evgeni or by you.) > > But what when I do not what to scroll? In the context of redisplay, any change of the window-start point is referred to as "scrolling the window". So when you tell the display engine to make sure the window-start is visible, and the last used window-start isn't, you cannot at the same time ask it not to scroll, because that's a contradiction. > > > BTW, did you ever use folding? I think not as often as I do, else you > > > would have known the issue we are talking about. My feedback was not > > > meant to annoy you - I wanted to share my experience as a user. Didn't > > > know that that's irrelevant. > > > > It was hardly perceived as irrelevant: I spent some non-trivial time > > working on this, which I wouldn't do if I haven't thought this is > > relevant and worth working on. > > I was referring to my latest feedback telling that scrolling is > suboptimal in my experience in this case, not to the conversation before > that. About that, I posted a detailed explanation why I thought the original problem is fixed now. How does that count as perceiving your opinions to be irrelevant? We surely disagree on this, but disagreement doesn't mean I consider your opinion irrelevant, and the detailed responses are the evidence that I didn't. > Please stay friendly and if you don't agree with what I say, at least > tell me. I've re-read every message I posted, and didn't find anything unfriendly I wrote there. What I did find was a lot of effort to explain how this stuff works and why the effect is what it is. I thought it will count for something. > And tell me that a solution without scrolling involved > is not possible, and why, or why you think that scrolling is > unavoidable. You said it can't be avoided when we do something in the > display engine. That's not what I said. Quote: It isn't unavoidable, but doing something more sophisticated would call for a significantly more complex code. The current solution for when this variable is set and the window-start point is invisible is very simple: we recenter the window around point. The recentering method is safe, because it always succeeds, which is why it also serves as the fallback method of finding the suitable window-start for redisplaying a window. The code that implements the recentering was already there, so the introduction of this new variable boiled down to recognizing the conditions under which we should go directly to recentering, bypassing all the other methods. Anything else would mean a much deeper surgery on the (already non-trivially complex) logic of redisplaying a window, whereby we both verify that the previous window-start is still usable, and try various optimizations to make the redrawing itself as cheap as possible. > Then maybe we should do it in a different way? Would > that be ok for you? If not, why? I need a more concrete proposal to answer these questions. IOW, I don't think I understand what kind of solution do you have in mind here. > > Am I not entitled to my own opinions about how things should be done > > in Emacs? > > There are other ways to express them. This is not about different > opinions. To be honest, I don't know a lot about your opinion here. I > would if you had given me feedback about the problem with scrolling I > had raised. I did explain much more than I thought was strictly necessary, in the hope that you will see my POV. If you have more questions about those explanations, feel free to ask. > That message was not a friendly or neutral response, at least the part > about the alternative would be to tell Lars to close the report in 10 > years. Or was it? That was an (obviously failed) attempt to joke about the practice not to close bug reports where there's nothing left to do, that's all. Why you saw that as unfriendly, and against you on top of that, I don't think I understand; I certainly didn't mean that. > You just ignored what I said and told the bug should be closed. If > you intended to say something different, I don't know, I can only answer > and react to what you wrote. Saying "Bug should be closed" without > replying to mentioned problems just sounds like "the discussion is > over". I didn't "just ignore" what you said. I posted 2 detailed explanations why my opinion is different: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=14582#112 https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=14582#118 The latter explicitly provides, in a very detailed manner, my reasons why I think this bug should be closed.