From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:42:24 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <83txfchg0u.fsf@gnu.org> <5288B5D1.2000301@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1384703002 22705 80.91.229.3 (17 Nov 2013 15:43:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:43:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 17 16:43:24 2013 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 1Vi4VP-0002PF-CR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:43:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39447 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4VP-0005rF-0l for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:43:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34457) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4VE-0005m7-IH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:43:19 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4V4-00051X-NG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:43:12 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:44799) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4V4-00050V-JY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:43:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4V4-0007jA-3Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:43:02 -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, 17 Nov 2013 15:43:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 15899 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 15899-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B15899.138470295429640 (code B ref 15899); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:43:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Nov 2013 15:42:34 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58818 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4Ub-0007i0-IX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:42:33 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:61970) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4UZ-0007hd-13 for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:42:31 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABK/CFHO+J3G/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOIYYl5kiCBXoMV X-IPAS-Result: Av8EABK/CFHO+J3G/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOIYYl5kiCBXoMV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="38127696" Original-Received: from 206-248-157-198.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([206.248.157.198]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 17 Nov 2013 10:42:25 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id D134260487; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:42:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <5288B5D1.2000301@dancol.org> (Daniel Colascione's message of "Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:25:53 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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:80687 Archived-At: > Can you provide an example of an actual case where two overlays should be > ordered one way in one context and another in a different context? Nothing > comes to mind at the moment. No, I admit to not having a concrete case to give you offhand (I do remember that we have bumped into such problems in the past, tho). The issue boils down to the fact that we generally don't want an overlay to hide another. But priorities are not a good way to solve this problem, since the "hiding" depends on the relative position: if an overlay A is nested within another overlay B, then A should be "on top" in order not to be hidden, and if later the relative position of A changes such that B is now nested into A, then B should now be "on top". Sometimes we really do want one overlay to "be on top", including hiding another, and in that case priorities can work OK. > I don't think numeric priorities are as big a social problem as you suspect: Indeed, there's also the general problems of priorities, e.g. where A wants to be on top of B, C wants to be on top of A and B wants to be on top of C. And I agree that in practice these issues aren't all that bad. But overlays have their own additional issues, specific to their nature. Stefan