From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should invisible imply intangible? Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:09:49 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <200202250009.g1P09n215762@aztec.santafe.edu> References: <200202232019.g1NKJoG14638@aztec.santafe.edu> <15480.2192.588174.300112@hamm.pajato.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014596214 12290 195.204.10.66 (25 Feb 2002 00:16:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 00:16:54 GMT Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16f8p3-0003C8-00 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:16:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16f8mQ-0005ge-00; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:14:10 -0500 Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16f8iE-0005OC-00; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:09:51 -0500 Original-Received: from aztec.santafe.edu (aztec [192.12.12.49]) by pele.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g1P09tu00971; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:09:55 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: (from rms@localhost) by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id g1P09n215762; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:09:49 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec using -f Original-To: pmr@pajato.com In-reply-to: <15480.2192.588174.300112@hamm.pajato.com> (message from Paul Michael Reilly on Sat, 23 Feb 2002 16:24:32 -0500) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1498 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1498 Invisible but tangible appealed to me for handling Rmail ignorable headers using inbox format. That seems like the wrong tool for the job. On the one hand I wanted to make these headers invisible to the User but on the other hand I want to add/remove text behind the scenes, so to speak, to the headers to handle attributes and labels. You could bind inhibit-point-motion-hooks to non-nil in these commands. That is simple, and gives much better results than making them tangible for the user. My gut feel is that having the three choices of invisible, intangible and hidden (which is both invisible and intangible) is the best solution. My gut feeling is the opposite. Do you have any specific situations to show me that my gut feeling is wrong? _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel