From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: invisible text and point Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 08:07:13 -0500 (CDT) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200305261307.h4QD7Dk15098@eel.dms.auburn.edu> References: <200305260437.h4Q4bbh14766@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200305260516.h4Q5GpU14793@eel.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1053954447 5159 80.91.224.249 (26 May 2003 13:07:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:07:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon May 26 15:07:25 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19KHgx-0001Jd-00 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 15:07:07 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19KHuB-0003Qj-00 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 15:20:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19KHhx-0005i4-UU for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:08:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19KHhI-0004bQ-9Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:07:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19KHh6-0003zq-Fv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:07:17 -0400 Original-Received: from manatee.dms.auburn.edu ([131.204.53.104]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19KHh1-0003iq-9h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:07:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eel.dms.auburn.edu (eel.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.108]) h4QD79oc021451; Mon, 26 May 2003 08:07:09 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by eel.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id h4QD7Dk15098; Mon, 26 May 2003 08:07:13 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: eel.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: teirllm@dms.auburn.edu In-reply-to: <200305260516.h4Q5GpU14793@eel.dms.auburn.edu> (message from Luc Teirlinck on Mon, 26 May 2003 00:16:51 -0500 (CDT)) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14278 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14278 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.