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: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:03:37 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <200203092003.g29K3b303868@wijiji.santafe.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> <200203052304.g25N4pI03908@rum.cs.yale.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby.gnus.org X-Trace: quimby.gnus.org 1015704437 25957 80.91.224.244 (9 Mar 2002 20:07:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby.gnus.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Mar 2002 20:07:17 GMT Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16jn7d-0006kZ-00 for ; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 21:07:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16jn6X-00075B-00; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 15:06:09 -0500 Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16jn46-0006sT-00; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 15:03:38 -0500 Original-Received: from wijiji.santafe.edu (wijiji [192.12.12.5]) by pele.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g29K3mu23126; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:03:48 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: (from rms@localhost) by wijiji.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id g29K3b303868; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:03:37 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: wijiji.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@wijiji using -f Original-To: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu In-reply-to: <200203052304.g25N4pI03908@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:1829 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1829 > 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. That is ok. When text is invisible, it is very confusing if point can be either before or after. It is much better if point can only be on one of those two places. Please do it that way. 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"). This behavior of this would be similar in most respects to what I ask for, except less predictable. So what I designed seems to be clearly better. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel