Re: Hl-line and visual-line

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:47 AM, David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Lennart Borgman wrote:
>>>
>>> is your definition of `bovl' and `eovl'.
>>
>> I mean the same difference as between beginning-of-line and
>> line-beginning-position (point-at-bol). (I prefer the shorter versions
>> here. They are easier to read and easy to understand.)
>>
>> The first one moves point, but the second does not.
>
> (save-excursion
>        (beginning-of-visual-line)
>        (point))
>
> The presence of such functions may reinforce the impression that they could be used as "beg" and "end" parameters to any other function that will process the text between "beg" and "end", in order to make it operate on the visual line.
>
> This works for L2R or even R2L text, but as this thread has made clear, not in the bidirectional case.
>
> So one would want a warning in their DOC strings, if those functions are needed.

Good point of course. Maybe instead functions like
min-point-visual-line etc would better? Hm, that would be problematic
too because the direction of text might change from min to max on the
line. I think I am beginning to understand what the details here have
been about.

I think then it might be a bad idea to have those functions I suggest, yes.

A comment about that the text shown between beginning-of-visual-line
and end-... is not necessarily the text between those points when
bidirectional text is in the buffer would be good.

I did not realize that "bidi" meant bidirectional (i.e. text in both
directions) simultaneously before. I can realize Eli had some trouble
with this and the display engine. Great work.