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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:22:19 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200203160022.g2G0MJ204725@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> <200203121756.g2CHuG514941@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203131058.g2DAwQh05428@wijiji.santafe.edu> <200203150341.g2F3flZ06455@wijiji.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016238311 1480 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2002 00:25:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David.Kastrup@t-online.de, monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16m20V-0000Nm-00 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:25:11 +0100 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16m23c-0007HW-00 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:28:24 +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 16m1zV-00056q-00; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:24:09 -0500 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16m1xk-00050U-00; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:22:20 -0500 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2G0MJ204725; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:22:19 -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:1948 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1948 > isearch-open-invisible will call a user-supplied hook in order to make > invisible texts appear when searching. Those images I use in my > buffer effectively make the original text invisible (for example, I > replace $\frac{\pi}{3}$ by an image for the formula), so I want > isearch to "open" them while going through the buffer. isearch will, > however, only call isearch-open-invisible if the text/overlay is > marked as invisible, so that is what I do. > > It would make more sense to modify isearch-open-invisible so it can > deal with these images in another way. The invisible property should > override the display property and make the text it covers not appear, > not as itself, not modified by a display property. I'm not completely sure about that. After all, why would someone put a `display' property on an `invisible' overlay if the `invisible' property means that the `display' property will be ignored anyway ? In the case of `display' properties, I agree that your point of view might be acceptable, but in the case of `before-string' and `after-string' it is clearly not so, because it is very common to use an overlay with both the `before-string' and the `invisible' property in order to replace a piece of text with another. In such a case we again end up with `invisible' text which does have a screen representation so that having point before or after the invisible text is user-visible (just as is the case with ellipsis), which implies that we again shouldn't prevent the user from placing point immediately after the invisible text. I hope you're beginning to see what I meant when I said that it's not easy to determine when a piece of `invisible' text really has no effect on screen. Checking the invisibility-spec is not enough: you also have to check the presence of a `before-string' or an `after-string' or a `display' (although this last one might disappear if you decide that its behavior should be changed) and maybe there are other cases. Stefan _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel