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: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:56:16 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200203121756.g2CHuG514941@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> <200203092237.g29MbGf29464@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203102132.g2ALWPK04119@wijiji.santafe.edu> <200203102202.g2AM26q06798@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203111906.g2BJ6BY04591@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 1015955845 28834 80.91.224.249 (12 Mar 2002 17:57:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org, David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16kqWb-0007Ux-00 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:57:25 +0100 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16kqYr-00061t-00 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:59:45 +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 16kqWR-00087t-00; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:57:15 -0500 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16kqVV-000865-00; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:56:17 -0500 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2CHuG514941; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:56:16 -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:1881 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1881 > > 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. > > > > That is the case we are talking about. > > I do not know how to detect that case robustly. > > Whenever the text is invisible and does not display an ellipsis. > The value of TEXT_PROP_MEANS_INVISIBLE will tell you whether this > is the case. That much I know, but the problem is when there's some other property like a `display' property that ends up displaying something. > But some texts can have both an image and the invisible property. > > Shouldn't that make the image invisible? The image property should > have no effect when the text is invisible. (It doesn't matter what > the text wou;d looks like, if you don't see it.) > > Is that not what happens now? It seems not since David uses display+invisible when replacing TeX source code with an image of the output in his preview-latex package (the `invisible' property seems useless at first, but he uses it so he can use the isearch-open-invisible hook). > In my experience > most cases where I encounter invisible text (and where point can easily > end up inside the invisible text) is with things like outline-minor-mode > and hs-minor-mode (i.e. text replaced by ellisps), so that's what I consider > as the most important case to handle. > > What you want is right for that case, the case where an ellipsis is > displayed. I am talking about what to do in the other case, the case > where the text is not replaced by an ellipsis. > > It looks like you have another kind of scenario in mind, but I don't know > what it looks like. > > The scenario is one where message header lines are marked as invisible > using overlays, the goal being to hide them. Any reason why those cannot explicitly use the `intangible' property ? Stefan _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel