On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>wrote:

> > Since the main point I was implementing this was so I could add these
> > properties to overlay, I'd prefer a solution that works better with them.
>
> Yes, I understand that, and I agree it should work well with overlays
> as well.
>
> > Would it be better to store overlays at point at the end of this loop,
> and
> > use this instead of looking up old points?
>
> Might be, yes.
>
> > To solve the boundary-control issue, I could look at get-pos-property
> > and use the same mechanism it does for controlling boundary behaviour.
>
> Yes, you'd need to implement a get-overlays-at-pos.
>        Stefan
>
Actually, instead of this, why not add an extra optional argument that
defaults to nil to get-pos-property?  If the argument is non-nil,
get-pos-property would return a list of the values named property at pos
instead of just one of them.  This way wouldn't  duplicate boundary-checking
functionality.

Thanks,
Nathaniel Flath