From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should invisible imply intangible? Date: 16 Mar 2002 12:58:42 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200202232019.g1NKJoG14638@aztec.santafe.edu> <200202250510.g1P5A3714156@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200202262013.g1QKDef16683@aztec.santafe.edu> <200203010130.g211UDG05790@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203031440.g23EeN200619@aztec.santafe.edu> <200203031711.g23HBI623254@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203042341.g24NfiH00596@aztec.santafe.edu> <200203052158.g25Lw7A01243@wijiji.santafe.edu> <200203052304.g25N4pI03908@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203092003.g29K3b303868@wijiji.santafe.edu> <200203092237.g29MbGf29464@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203102132.g2ALWPK04119@wijiji.santafe.edu> <200203102202.g2AM26q06798@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203111906.g2BJ6BY04591@wijiji.santafe.edu> <200203121756.g2CHuG514941@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200203131058.g2DAwQh05428@wijiji.santafe.edu> <200203150341.g2F3flZ06455@wijiji.santafe.edu> <200203160639.g2G6drE07446@wijiji.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016280615 16191 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2002 12:10:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16mD0p-0004D3-00 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:10:15 +0100 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16mD46-0003i9-00 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:13:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16mCzm-0008Fz-00; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 07:09:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.83]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16mCxl-0007w2-00; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 07:07:05 -0500 Original-Received: from fwd10.sul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16mCpl-0003H3-06; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:58:49 +0100 Original-Received: from tupik.goethe.zz (520018396234-0001@[217.80.157.174]) by fwd10.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16mCpi-1oOKMSC; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:58:46 +0100 Original-Received: (from dak@localhost) by tupik.goethe.zz (8.11.6/linuxconf) id g2GBwhT01459; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:58:43 +0100 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <200203160639.g2G6drE07446@wijiji.santafe.edu> Original-Lines: 36 X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:1965 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1965 Richard Stallman writes: > Well, I already explained that in the case of an overlay, the display > property is not really connected with the text but with the buffer > locations. > > You've stated your views, but I don't agree. In the case you should put forward a proposal that matches your views consistently. In particular, how would your model treat an overlay having a display property with an image in it, when the text up to and including character 10 of the buffer was invisible (due to a text property, for example), and both overlay-start and overlay-end are 11. This is an empty overlay, not convering any character, and the character left from it is invisible, the character right from it is visible. According to your opinion, the visibility of the overlay should be connected with the text it covers, but it does not cover any. So how would you want to treat this case? There is a price I will have to pay for an implementation of your views: it will be rather hard to come up with working code for the preview-latex package for both Emacs-21.3 and Emacs-21.1, and people upgrading their Emacs while keeping a now current version of preview-latex will have it break. I would be loath to pay this price for the mere replacement of one inconsistent interface with another. So please let us get a complete scheme worked out of how to deal with all cases involved before implementing things, and save the actual interface change for 21.3, letting 21.2 still work in the old way. Thanks, -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel