From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#65896: 30.0.50; folding text with text properties prevents background from extending past the newline Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:51:22 +0000 Message-ID: <87fs352mdx.fsf@localhost> References: <87ttrzmfua.fsf@strawberrytea.xyz> <83v8cfns1m.fsf@gnu.org> <87il8fm7x2.fsf@gmail.com> <40b4f4d3-34ae-4631-bebd-eefcd034d87e@app.fastmail.com> <83il8envaf.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm2d6mbj.fsf@localhost> <83bkdvaio4.fsf@gnu.org> <87jzsiy0ra.fsf@localhost> <83il82775q.fsf@gnu.org> <8734z6xvsh.fsf@localhost> <83a5te74sa.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25756"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 65896@debbugs.gnu.org, kevin.legouguec@gmail.com, look@strawberrytea.xyz To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 23 12:51:06 2023 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 1qk0E6-0006TD-E4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:51:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qk0Ds-0004wB-2P; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 06:50:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qk0Dr-0004vu-3n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 06:50:51 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qk0Dq-0006Sq-Rs for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 06:50:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qk0E1-00076k-VI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 06:51:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Ihor Radchenko Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:51:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 65896 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 65896-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B65896.169546623827285 (code B ref 65896); Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:51:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 65896) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Sep 2023 10:50:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37852 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qk0De-000761-2i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 06:50:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:35127) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qk0Da-00075k-03 for 65896@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 06:50:36 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4212D240028 for <65896@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:50:17 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Rt5WX1Jxvz6tvc; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:50:15 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83a5te74sa.fsf@gnu.org> 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:271154 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > However, what is the detailed description of the behavior under this > proposal? I mean, which 2 glyphs to consider? the last two shown on > the screen line? If so, this will cause the same problems when these > two glyphs come from different buffer lines (due to invisibility), no? > IOW, won't that cause the same surprising effects, just in other > situations? You are right. If the visible part of the line has :extend already, it would make more sense to extend the face: The discussed issue corresponds to the following line structure: IMHO, after invisible text should simply inherit the face of previous glyph (from ellipsis, if ellipsis is visible; or from visible text, if invisible text is completely hidden) to get the expected look. Does it make more sense. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at