From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bidi,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: improving bidi documents display Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:04:33 +0200 Message-ID: <83oc5ria5q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <837hcpryxr.fsf@gnu.org> <87wrklpzii.fsf@maru.md5i.com> <83aahhnpr3.fsf@gnu.org> <4D6DA6E6.70509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <87zkpe9rfp.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83k4gixj6m.fsf@gnu.org> <83aahdxt74.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299226030 24495 80.91.229.12 (4 Mar 2011 08:07:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:07:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eli.osherovich@gmail.com, md5i@md5i.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, emacs-bidi@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-bidi-bounces+gnu-emacs-bidi=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 04 09:07:04 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gnu-emacs-bidi@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PvQ2M-0000x0-S6 for gnu-emacs-bidi@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:06:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44786 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PvQ2L-0000Vz-MI for gnu-emacs-bidi@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 03:06:57 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47378 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PvQ2F-0000VD-Ej for emacs-bidi@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 03:06:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PvQ2E-0005xw-Ew for emacs-bidi@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 03:06:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:44740) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PvQ2E-0005xq-5V; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 03:06:50 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LHI00K00WZ3PF00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:06:35 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.183.216]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LHI00KBQX6XO430@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:06:35 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 X-BeenThere: emacs-bidi@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of Emacs support for multi-directional text." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-bidi-bounces+gnu-emacs-bidi=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-bidi-bounces+gnu-emacs-bidi=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bidi:863 gmane.emacs.devel:136751 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Miles Bader , eli.osherovich@gmail.com, md5i@md5i.com, emacs-bidi@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:58:32 -0500 > > > This one's different, believe me: no other text property changes the > > _order_ of characters on display in creative ways. It could easily > > render the text illegible, under just the right circumstances. Other > > text properties are either non-intrusive, or are almost immediately > > fixed by JIT Lock, or are simply rare enough to not get in our way. > > But isn't it the case that the properties we'd add in this case would > also be added via jit-lock? Why? what's jit-lock got to do with this?