Re: invisible text and point

[Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>]

In this thread I failed to remember what the exact pre-change
behavior was.  Here is the change mentioned in the NEWS:

    ** At the end of a command, point moves out from within invisible
    text, in the same way it moves out from within text covered by an
    image or composition property.

    This makes it generally unnecessary to mark invisible text as
    intangible.
    This is particularly good because the intangible property often has
    unexpected side-effects since the property applies to everything
    (including `goto-char', ...) whereas this new code is only run after
    post-command-hook and thus does not care about intermediate states.

Thus the change was not motivated by problems with stickiness, as I
originally thought.  I confused with the next NEWS entry, which I
remembered from something else.  I do not copy it entirely, since it
is long:

  ** Only one of the beginning or end of an invisible, intangible region
     is considered an acceptable value for point; which one is
     determined by examining how the invisible/intangible properties are
     inherited when new text is inserted adjacent to them.  (The
     `front-sticky' and `rear-sticky' properties control this.)

So there are three solutions:

Really revert to the emacs-21.3 behavior and use intangible properties
in these situations again, leave things as they are now and deal with
the bugs, or (what I really was suggesting yesterday, when I
misinterpreted the actual emacs-21.3 behavior) make the code that runs
after post-command-hook really mimic the old behavior by never placing
point inside an invisible region.  (And thus not confusing commands
like m and RETURN in info, C-h f, C-h v, M-x man and countless others
that act upon, or choose a default based on, the position of point.)
At first view, I might prefer the latter solution.

Sincerely,

Luc.