Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 188f657: Fix false negatives in tex--prettify-symbols-compose-p.

[Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org>]

Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:

>>>> Could mimicking (better: merging with) the approach of reveal-mode
>>>> help?
>>>
>>> Now that Tassilo seems to have it working, I don't think it's worth
>>> mimicking something else.  However, if the feature can be simplified
>>> by merging with reveal mode then that would surely be nice.
>>
>> I didn't get Davis email until now
>
> He accidentally sent it only to me (instead of to the list).

Ah, ok.

>> (and it seems that mails from or to
>> emacs-devel are somehow deferred; do you have such issues, too?)
>
> I have noticed that when I try to "reply-all" one of your emails your
> address is never included in the To: field (I added it manually now).

Hm, that probably depends on your mail client.  When I follow up to your
mails on emacs-devel using Gnus, you'll be in To and emacs-devel in Cc.

> The list address does get included, though, so you probably receive
> the emails anyway.

Yes, the problem is only that mails directed to my email address are
delivered immediately while I haven't received mail from emacs-devel for
several hours.  This includes for example your mail I'm just replying
to...

>> We can't use that because `reveal-mode' is specialized for revealing
>> overlays whereas `prettify-symbols-mode' uses text properties.
>
> Alright. I tested the code now and it works well. My only suggestion
> would be to change this:
>   (< (point) (car prettify-symbols--current-symbol-bounds))
> to this:
>   (<= (point) (car prettify-symbols--current-symbol-bounds))
> But I guess that's more of a personal preference.

Yes, I think so too.  But feel free to add that feature, e.g., by having
another possibile value for `prettify-symbols-unprettify-at-point'.

> Either way I think it looks good to merge.

Done and thanks!
Tassilo