From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should invisible imply intangible? Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 17:37:16 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200203092237.g29MbGf29464@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> <200203052304.g25N4pI03908@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203092003.g29K3b303868@wijiji.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1015713570 32004 80.91.224.249 (9 Mar 2002 22:39:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 22:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([195.204.10.138]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16jpUv-0008K5-00 for ; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 23:39:30 +0100 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org (ingebrigtsen.no [80.91.224.244] (may be forged)) by hermes.netfonds.no (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g29MdUV05651 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 23:39:30 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16jpVv-00082p-00 for ; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 23:40:31 +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 16jpUb-0000mJ-00; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 17:39:09 -0500 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16jpSn-0000gI-00; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 17:37:17 -0500 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g29MbGf29464; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 17:37:16 -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: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:1831 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1831 > > 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. I could agree to it but only in the case where the screen representation is really empty, so that both cursor positions are displayed in the same way. On the other hand, if the text is replaced by ellipsis or by an image, it is very strange not to be able to position the cursor after the invisible text. > Please do it that way. I think it'd be an error because it's only desirable in some rare cases, and I suspect that those cases would be better served by explicitly using the `intangible' text property. > 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. It is just as predictable. And it is clearly superior since it allows to do things which your design does not. I often edit text with hidden subparts (using outline-minor-mode) and I often insert text either right before or right after an invisible area. Being unable to insert text right after would be very annoying. Stefan _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel