From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:40:11 -0500
Message-ID: <E1F4Npr-0000Xw-5Y@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <E1F3ztI-00016t-G1@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<200601311925.k0VJPHJ09839@raven.dms.auburn.edu>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138832986 2980 80.91.229.2 (1 Feb 2006 22:29:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:29:46 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 01 23:29:45 2006
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F4QQ9-0004TN-7M
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:25:50 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F4QTD-0006XX-Op
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:28:59 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F4OU4-0001i2-1S
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:21:44 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F4OLL-0006hr-DH
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:12:43 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Ntu-0006Nc-G1
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:44:22 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F4Nsc-0001Hv-Aa
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:43:02 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1F4Npr-0000Xw-5Y; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:40:11 -0500
Original-To: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>
In-reply-to: <200601311925.k0VJPHJ09839@raven.dms.auburn.edu> (message from
	Luc Teirlinck on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:25:17 -0600 (CST))
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:49886
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/49886>

    When I tried out `left' and various other settings for
    indicate-buffer-boundaries, I found it messy and confusing, because it
    more or less at random can either hide other marks in the fringe or be
    hidden by them.

Can you provide a test case?