From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Brockman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Invisibility bug: `invisible' vs `display' Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:15:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87hctegtxt.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> References: <87sldbtd50.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <87hctraqhh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87hctq6eyd.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <861wkucyxw.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87ps8e9k8e.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <87vehu99x7.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <863b4yxvu3.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87ps82gwdi.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <86mz36wbvc.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172153747 1002 80.91.229.12 (22 Feb 2007 14:15:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:15:47 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 22 15:15:41 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 1HKEjS-0003uF-2Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:15:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKEjR-0002yx-JG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:15:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HKEjH-0002yn-38 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:15:27 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HKEjF-0002yb-Ke for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:15:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKEjF-0002yY-Ey for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:15:25 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HKEjF-0004JE-1F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:15:25 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HKEj1-0003Rv-16 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:15:11 +0100 Original-Received: from c-b1fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se ([85.226.254.177]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:15:11 +0100 Original-Received: from daniel by c-b1fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:15:11 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-b1fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se X-Face: :&2UWGm>e24)ip~'K@iOsA&JT3JX*v@1-#L)=dUb825\Fwg#`^N!Y*g-TqdS AevzjFJe96f@V'ya8${57/T'"mTd`1o{TGYhHnVucLq!D$r2O{IN)7>.0op_Y`%r;/Q +(]`3F-t10N7NF\.Mm0q}p1:%iqTi:5]1E]rDF)R$9.!,Eu'9K':y9^U3F8UCS1M+A$ 8[[[WT^`$P[vu>P+8]aQMh9giu&fPCqLW2FSsGs User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:P0fq7GWd7rnNuJHZrAleAZ/8/Jo= X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:66617 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Daniel Brockman writes: > >> The bug did not let you override the `invisible' property >> using the `display' property whenever you wanted; > > How do you know what I want? Let me rephrase. The bug did not let you override the `invisible' property using the `display' property in arbitrary situations. >> it _only_ let you do that at the start of invisible text --- clearly >> counter-intuitive, counter-useful, illogical, and erroneous. > > A display embedded in an invisible area should obviously not > be visible. I'm glad we agree on that. > At the immediate edge, it is not clear what should take preference. > If we have a display overlay with identical start and end points > both of which advance-on-insert, then the overlay _clearly_ marks > the position _between_ the text before and behind it. If the text > _behind_ it is invisible, this should obviously not affect the > overlay. Even more so if the displayed overlay is > non-advance-on-insert. How can an overlay with identical start and end points display anything? >> If you want some text to show, why not just set `invisible' >> to nil on that text? > > Display properties are not necessarily a part of text. Well, set it on an overlay if you want. What's the difference? -- Daniel Brockman