From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs's handling of line numbers [from bug#5042] Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:29:56 +0300 Message-ID: <83sk6sbre3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <837ho6czb6.fsf@gnu.org> <8339yucbsg.fsf@gnu.org> <83wrw5bxkc.fsf@gnu.org> <83tyr9bgid.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271611813 28732 80.91.229.12 (18 Apr 2010 17:30:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:30:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, mark.lillibridge@hp.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 18 19:30:10 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1O3YJu-0007hb-2d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:30:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48231 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O3YJt-0003uC-Ez for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:30:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O3YJo-0003tx-Cq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:30:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37643 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O3YJn-0003to-8U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:30:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O3YJl-0001Ce-C0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:30:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:60448) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O3YJl-0001BU-4D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:30:01 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L13006001WTPC00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:29:52 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.69.249]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L13005WJ1XR3J50@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:29:52 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:123847 Archived-At: > From: Juanma Barranquero > Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:49:54 +0200 > Cc: mark.lillibridge@hp.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > if I'm reading an Info node, my narrowing/widening > shouldn't interfere with the use of narrowing by Info-mode, because > that's just an artifact of its implementation. If that's the problem, we could disable narrowing/widening in Info mode. (I'm not saying we should, but if we decided to do so, it would be IMO a better solution than a whole new infrastructure with two kinds of restrictions.) > Being able to do M-x > widen in an Info node and seeing the whole buffer is IMO a "bug" > because it destroys the abstraction. Actually, it happens to be a feature (more accurately, a basis for a feature), both in Info and in Rmail. > On the same vein, if I were implementing a package that needed to > show/hide portions of the buffer, I would likely prefer the user not > to be able to break the abstraction just by accidentally doing M-x > widen. But you will never be able to disallow widening completely, because the primitives are not going to go away, and there's nothing to prevent a motivated individual from invoking them, even if they are non-interactive. IOW, I don't see how the suggested duplicity will solve enough of the problem to justify the added complexity. (For that matter, I don't see the problem, either -- see my other mail in this thread.)