From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should invisible imply intangible? Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:06:02 -0700 (MST) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200203171006.g2HA62307909@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> <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> <200203160022.g2G0MJ204725@rum.cs.yale.edu> <87d6y5mita.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <200203160059.g2G0x8F04836@rum.cs.yale.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016359797 11484 127.0.0.1 (17 Mar 2002 10:09:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:09:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles@gnu.org, monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, David.Kastrup@t-online.de, 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 16mXbx-0002z8-00 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:09:57 +0100 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16mXfh-00066b-00 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:13:50 +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 16mXbB-000181-00; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 05:09:09 -0500 Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16mXYB-0000tW-00; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 05:06:03 -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 g2HA63a15637; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:06:03 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: (from rms@localhost) by wijiji.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id g2HA62307909; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:06:02 -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: <200203160059.g2G0x8F04836@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: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:1980 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1980 I was specifically referring to the case where both properties come from the same overlay. I don't know what should (or does) happen when the two properties come from different sources. The simplest and cleanest thing to do is make the definition of each property independent of how it gets applied. We have to be very hesitant about making the meaning of a property different for overlays vs text properties. Now in the case of overlays, those are not connected with single characters, but with buffer positions. They are connected with a range of buffer positions, which covers a run of characters. If we are at a boundary where invisibility starts, the before-string is to be displayed before the overlay, before invisibility starts. That rule could be coherent both for text properties and for overlays. Another coherent alternative would be to say that when a character is invisible its before-string and after-string do not appear. I am not sure which is better--perhaps whichever one is easier to implement. But I think text properties and overlays should do the same thing. Now the question remains what to do with the display property itself. In case the overlay lies completely contained within an invisible area (as determined by text properties or another overlay with invisible property), it should not display. That much is obvious. But if start and/or end lie on the edge, what should we do? If we really are pedantic, the behavior will depend on the stickiness of the invisibility borders. The display property has nothing particularly to do with stickiness. Whether it specifies an image or something else, in all cases it modifies the appearance for of text. Its definition should be fixed and static, and not affected by stickiness. If the text is invisible, the display property should be ignored. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel