Never mind, since get_pos_property is a C function and not a Lisp one this probably wouldn't work.
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.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 theseYes, I understand that, and I agree it should work well with overlays
> properties to overlay, I'd prefer a solution that works better with them.
as well.
Might be, yes.
> Would it be better to store overlays at point at the end of this loop, and
> use this instead of looking up old points?
Yes, you'd need to implement a get-overlays-at-pos.
> To solve the boundary-control issue, I could look at get-pos-property
> and use the same mechanism it does for controlling boundary behaviour.
Stefan
Thanks,
Nathaniel Flath