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: invisible text and point Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:26:33 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200305261826.h4QIQX5S001474@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200305260437.h4Q4bbh14766@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200305261721.h4QHLigb001231@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200305261813.h4QIDN815240@eel.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1053973570 26700 80.91.224.249 (26 May 2003 18:26:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon May 26 20:26:07 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 19KMff-0006wI-00 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 20:26:07 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19KMsz-0006XF-00 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 20:39:53 +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 19KMgY-0000ko-97 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 14:27:02 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19KMgC-0000d5-Gh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 14:26:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19KMg8-0000PH-5J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 14:26:38 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19KMg7-0000N9-CX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 14:26:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4QIQXx6001476; Mon, 26 May 2003 14:26:33 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h4QIQX5S001474; Mon, 26 May 2003 14:26:33 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Luc Teirlinck Original-cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org 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:14293 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14293 > I posted a follow-up to my original message from yesterday evening > this morning. I no longer propose "reverting" to the emacs-21.3 > behavior (actually, I only did this because I misinterpreted it > yesterday, as I noticed this morning), but "mimicking it better", by > making sure that (point) returns the position of a visible character. Semantic detail (relevant in this context): `point' is always between two characters, which is why there is no (char-of POS) but there are (char-before POS) and (char-after POS). > Since my conjecture that the infinite loops were also related to the > problem was apparently a premature conclusion based on the fact that > the bugs did not occur in 21.3 and happened at similar places as the > other bug, we are left with the m and RETURN bugs in info. Just Yes, we need to address those. Making invisible front-sticky and not rear-sticky (in the info buffer) is easy enough. I guess the question now is: should we give preference to the desire to ensure that "self-insert-command will insert a visible character" or to "`char-after' is what the user sees (i.e. is visible)". Stefan