On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>wrote:

> > The patch is attached - please let me know if you have any comments.
>
> I'm wondering whether it should be described as complete or complex.
> Especially for a feature which hsan't yet found a user.
>
>
Yes, I didn't think it would be nearly as complex when I started.   The
latest revision removes the argument for whether it was called due to a
buffer change; this doesn't seem as necessary when the overlay is only run
once instead of multiple times.

> run_point_motion_hooks (prev_c_buffer)

>
> This seems to run the hooks for all overlays at the starting position
> and all overlays at the ending position.  If you add to that the fact
> that it runs them for windows and for the buffer, you get that under the
> usual circumstance of a command within the same buffer displayed in
> a single window, moving within the same overlay we run the hook 4 times?
>
> I think we need to be more careful and only run the hook when crossing
> the boundary, i.e. when moving out of or into an overlay with that
> property.  But even if we decide to run it for all movements, we should
> be careful to run it a bit less liberally.  It's probably OK to
> occasionally have a few spurious extra runs of the hook, but your
> current code needs to be a lot more careful.
>

 The code has been fixed so that the same overlay or text property should
only run once, and only if a boundary has been crossed.  I'm not really sure
whether it should run on all motion; either way would be fairly easy to
implement.

One more thing: I think the buffer and window object should only store
> the few overlays that do have a point-motion property.  Maybe they could
> even limit themselves to storing "the" overlay with a point-motion
> property (if there are several, it should take the one with highest
> priority).
>
>
>
It seemed to be more consistent with the priority mechanism to only store
and run one, so that's what it currently does.   The patch with these fixes
is attached; please let me know if there are any other comments.

Thanks,
Nathaniel Flath