From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8914: 23.3; Overlay overlapping buffer-invisibility-spec behaves oddly Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 16:03:27 +0100 Message-ID: <877dpsibls.fsf@gnus.org> References: <0E1AAFEC-4C0B-4A37-993C-8CD0133BC5C8@ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7636"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 8914@debbugs.gnu.org To: David Aspinall Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 08 16:04:23 2020 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 1kmeXP-0001sb-0n for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 16:04:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37024 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmeXN-0003tU-UX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:04:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37712) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmeX4-0003sn-1y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:04:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47576) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmeX3-0003V1-RH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:04:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kmeX3-0008A2-Lh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:04:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:04:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8914 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 8914-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8914.160743983431357 (code B ref 8914); Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:04:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8914) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2020 15:03:54 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59122 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kmeWv-00089g-CC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:03:54 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:51822) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kmeWf-00088v-7r for 8914@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:03:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=60hr41JeJ5UKjBsPZXqCq5lh7IzDwHkeS+txUuGUv9I=; b=Tjn1Ee1WjqZ1rg3hORH8mYBb4K 8N9OMELpwEfjSq0g5G6U5LPr3bVDDeX74JXnMuxXl/gjR7hznqkTXkR8tL2RZH7rjIH2q/Bbh97hL wDh4+Y/fVbIUCkJc5b9c7MRMfwHWhlisxpraG9B2Yv1R+gxaxfJob03Wh9o5l9J3TgWs=; Original-Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kmeWW-0003Lj-8Z; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 16:03:30 +0100 X-Now-Playing: Sumac's _May You Be Held_: "A Prayer for Your Path" In-Reply-To: <0E1AAFEC-4C0B-4A37-993C-8CD0133BC5C8@ed.ac.uk> (David Aspinall's message of "Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:57:32 +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:195354 Archived-At: David Aspinall writes: > Insert the text below into a buffer, > > M-x eval-buffer RET > M-x toggle-invis > > The smaller area remains visible, although there is a surrounding > overlay which has an invisibility spec which should cover the revealed > characters. > > I suppose this is debatable, but intuitively I would expect the whole > larger region to be made invisible. (This bug report unfortunately got no response at the time.) ;;; ;;; === Test area for invisibility === ;;; (defvar vis nil) (overlay-put (make-overlay 18 22) 'invisible 'smaller) (overlay-put (make-overlay 9 43) 'invisible 'larger) At this point, the entire region is invisible, because the default invisible spec is t. (add-to-invisibility-spec '(larger . t)) This makes the `smaller' part visible, because when buffer-invisibility-spec is a list, only those types that are listed are made invisible. However, smaller overlays have priority over larger ones, so the small part becomes visible. This sounds confusing, but I think it's working as designed. If you want the larger overlay to take priority, you have to add priority specs explicitly to the larger overlay? So I'm closing this bug report. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no