From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#33664: 26.1; Document vars and functions in `cursor-sensor.el' Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2018 14:35:42 -0500 Message-ID: References: > > <83zhte3f4n.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1544384049 19281 195.159.176.226 (9 Dec 2018 19:34:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 19:34:09 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 33664@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 09 20:34:05 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gW4q3-0004r3-Kc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 20:34:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56390 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gW4s9-0007Ow-P0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 14:36:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60890) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gW4s3-0007Or-O9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 14:36:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gW4ry-0006RY-Oh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 14:36:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:36011) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gW4ry-0006QL-Kk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 14:36:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gW4ry-0002du-Bu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 14:36:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2018 19:36:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 33664 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 33664-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B33664.154438414610125 (code B ref 33664); Sun, 09 Dec 2018 19:36:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 33664) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Dec 2018 19:35:46 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40269 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gW4ri-0002dF-1J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 14:35:46 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:60503) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gW4rg-0002d6-4g for 33664@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 14:35:44 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id wB9JZgp7007563; Sun, 9 Dec 2018 14:35:43 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id BBE856A438; Sun, 9 Dec 2018 14:35:42 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 9 Dec 2018 10:32:58 -0800 (PST)") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6435=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6435> : inlines <6979> : streams <1806652> : uri <2762480> 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:153274 Archived-At: > Specifically, I'd like to know some behavior > differences - examples of when `intangible' text With `intangible` you can have a situation where a chunk of code does (goto-char POS) BLAH BLAH BLAH and it misbehaves because BLAH BLAH BLAH expects to run with point at POS, but some other package added an `intangible` property so the goto-char actually ended up putting point somewhere else. IOW `intangible` breaks all kinds of invariants like (point) == (progn (forward-char N) (forward-char -N) (point)) (+ N (point)) == (progn (forward-char N) (point)) [ Admittedly these invariants aren't true when you bump into EOB but a lot of code is prepared to deal with odd cases at EOB but is not prepared for such surprises happening virtually anywhere. ] Stefan