From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Invisibility bug: `invisible' vs `display' Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:13:31 +0100 Message-ID: <861wkucyxw.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <87sldbtd50.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <87hctraqhh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87hctq6eyd.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1171350859 18258 80.91.229.12 (13 Feb 2007 07:14:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Brockman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 13 08:14:13 2007 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 4.50) id 1HGrre-0000Hu-DK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:14:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGrrd-0002nE-Q3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:14:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HGrrS-0002n9-2A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:13:58 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HGrrP-0002mx-Jy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:13:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGrrP-0002mu-EU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:13:55 -0500 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HGrrP-0004JH-14 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:13:55 -0500 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (pd95b0fdb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.91.15.219]) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25899 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:13:48 +0100 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 32562 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2007 07:13:53 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Feb 2007 07:13:53 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5D93CC343D; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:13:31 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87hctq6eyd.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> (Daniel Brockman's message of "Tue\, 13 Feb 2007 02\:09\:30 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:66330 Archived-At: Daniel Brockman writes: > Chong Yidong writes: > >> Daniel Brockman writes: >> >>> The `*' and `?' characters have `invisibile' properties >>> with a value of `t', so I expect to see none of them. >>> >>> The `?' characters all have `display' properties with a >>> value of "!" (one of them has "$" instead, for clarity). >>> This, I believe, _should_ be irrelevant. >> >> The `display' text property overrides `invisible'. > > If that were true, then all the `?' characters should > display as exclamation marks, but they don't, so the > `display' text property does not override `invisible'. > > This still looks like a bug to me. > > Let me state again what I see: The `display' property > overrides `invisible' if and only if the previous character > is visible. How is this reasonable or useful in any way? When folding stretches of code, it does not make sense to have images in between cluster all together and stick out in spite of the invisibility of the region. I am not saying that the current behavior is perfect, but it would seem you would want to replace it with something that can cause quite a bit of trouble, and I don't think we have the time to shake out all repercussions before the release. -- David Kastrup