From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Colin Walters Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill Date: 09 Apr 2002 18:06:28 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <1018389988.3342.8.camel@space-ghost> References: <87ofh09xjq.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> <200204050602.g3562Dl18586@aztec.santafe.edu> <87bscx7rlf.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> <200204061732.g36HWSb19584@aztec.santafe.edu> <87k7rkmuk0.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> <87zo0gbfb2.fsf@emacswiki.org> <1018138376.27236.49.camel@space-ghost> <87bscwe36t.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <874rio5ide.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> <1018154686.1186.13.camel@space-ghost> <200204072342.g37Ngm020048@aztec.santafe.edu> <1018235691.1186.40.camel@space-ghost> <200204091207.g39C7kh20370@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018393412 16549 127.0.0.1 (9 Apr 2002 23:03:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16v4eB-0004Io-00 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:03:31 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16v4tC-00080s-00 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:19:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16v4dt-0004Kq-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:03:13 -0400 Original-Received: from monk.debian.net ([216.185.54.61] helo=monk.verbum.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16v4b4-0004DA-00 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:00:18 -0400 Original-Received: from space-ghost.verbum.private (freedom.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.60.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "space-ghost.verbum.org", Issuer "monk.verbum.org" (verified OK)) by monk.verbum.org (Postfix (Debian/GNU)) with ESMTP id A24C9740025D for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by space-ghost.verbum.private (Postfix (Debian/GNU), from userid 1000) id 5A3DE8067A9; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <200204091207.g39C7kh20370@aztec.santafe.edu> X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0 (Preview Release) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2496 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2496 On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 08:07, Richard Stallman wrote: > > The advantages you see are not real advantages because they are not > > really differences. If you like the extent facility it makes no sense > > for you to dislike the extremely similar overlay facility. > > Extremely similar, except for that all-important duplicable property, > which would solve my ibuffer problem in a clean way. > > Would you please be precise? I answered this in my reply to Miles. Basically, since text properties would be implemented in Lisp over extents, I could use that code to build my own text properties which are specific to a buffer. More than likely though I wouldn't have even to do that; I think more people would want to use such an API, so it would already be part of Emacs.