From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should invisible imply intangible? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:30:13 -0500 Message-ID: <200203010130.g211UDG05790@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200202232019.g1NKJoG14638@aztec.santafe.edu> <200202250510.g1P5A3714156@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200202262013.g1QKDef16683@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014946663 24922 195.204.10.66 (1 Mar 2002 01:37:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Mar 2002 01:37:43 GMT Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, 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 16gbzS-0006Ts-00 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 02:37:42 +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 16gbux-00031x-00; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:33:03 -0500 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16gbsE-0001NY-00; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:30:14 -0500 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g211UDG05790; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:30:13 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Richard Stallman 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:1661 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1661 > > 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. But reveal.el does not apply to all invisible text in a buffer. Only to the text that's made invisible by an overlay and only if the invisibility spec says that it should be replaced by an ellipsis. Also, as David Kastrup has mentioned repeatedly, intangible text tends to break lots of things, so we probably want to use something else. For example: automatically move point to a visible area after each command (and after post-command-hook, of course) or during redisplay (I believe there is already such a feature for text with a `display' property). The current intangibility which moves point to a tangible area for each and every point motion tends to be too intrusive. I think that a "move to visible, after post-command-hook" or something like that might be appropriate. And it wouldn't conflict with reveal.el (although it could still conflict if reveal.el was changed to use an idle timer rather than post-command-hook). Stefan _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel