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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:40 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <200202262013.g1QKDef16683@aztec.santafe.edu> References: <200202232019.g1NKJoG14638@aztec.santafe.edu> <200202250510.g1P5A3714156@rum.cs.yale.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014754791 23986 195.204.10.66 (26 Feb 2002 20:19:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Feb 2002 20:19:51 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 16fo4k-0006Em-00 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:19:50 +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 16fo1D-0005sz-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:16:11 -0500 Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16fnyn-0005Tp-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:13:41 -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 g1QKDku27011; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:46 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: (from rms@localhost) by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id g1QKDef16683; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:40 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec using -f Original-To: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu In-reply-to: <200202250510.g1P5A3714156@rum.cs.yale.edu> (monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu) 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:1550 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1550 > Is there any practical use for text which is invisible but not > intangible? Yes. Check out lisp/reveal.el (aka reveal-mode) Ok, I am convinced. But what do you think of the view that invisible should imply intangible unless something like reveal.el is used? We could have a flag which says whether invisible implies intangible. It could default to t, and reveal-mode could set it to nil. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel