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: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:04:51 -0500 Message-ID: <200203052304.g25N4pI03908@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200202232019.g1NKJoG14638@aztec.santafe.edu> <200202250510.g1P5A3714156@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200202262013.g1QKDef16683@aztec.santafe.edu> <200203010130.g211UDG05790@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203031440.g23EeN200619@aztec.santafe.edu> <200203031711.g23HBI623254@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203042341.g24NfiH00596@aztec.santafe.edu> <200203052158.g25Lw7A01243@wijiji.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1015369994 15689 195.204.10.66 (5 Mar 2002 23:13:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Mar 2002 23:13:14 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 16iO7N-00044x-00 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:13:13 +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 16iO0T-0003Am-00; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:06:05 -0500 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16iNzI-00032l-00; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:04:52 -0500 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g25N4pI03908; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:04:51 -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:1755 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1755 > I wrote > > The change in adjust_point_for_property seems ok, and it might solve > this problem. > > However, subsequently I realized it should be somewhat different. The > buffer position just after the invisible text should be treated as > part of the range where point cannot be. (This is how invisible, > intangible text is handled now.) But that would make it very awkward for the user to insert text immediately after the invisible area. If we still want to provide the illusion that the text really isn't there at all, then we should treat either the buffer position immediately before or immediately after as part of the intangible text, depending on the direction of the motion (so that both positions can still be reached "easily"). Stefan _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel