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: 19 Mar 2002 12:12:02 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016536574 28729 127.0.0.1 (19 Mar 2002 11:16:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:16:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, 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 16nHbC-0007TH-00 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:16:14 +0100 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16nHgS-00051b-00 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:21:40 +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 16nHaX-00089i-00; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:15:33 -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 16nHYi-00085g-00; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:13:40 -0500 Original-Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16nHXV-0002U6-05; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:12:25 +0100 Original-Received: from tupik.goethe.zz (520018396234-0001@[62.226.12.147]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16nHXK-1hDgHIC; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:12:14 +0100 Original-Received: (from dak@localhost) by tupik.goethe.zz (8.11.6/linuxconf) id g2JBC3V01629; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:12:03 +0100 Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 33 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:2035 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2035 Eli Zaretskii writes: > On 19 Mar 2002, David Kastrup wrote: > > > As Stefan (or was it Miles?) has already remarked, the default > > display of cursors should preferably be such that an insertion of new > > characters will occur at the location where the cursor is visible. > > Mostly unrelated to the current discussion, but I thought I'd raise > that anyway: the principle that insertion should happen at cursor > location is not carved in stone. It will possibly not hold with > bidirectional editing: when typing bidirectional text, it sometimes > makes sense to insert characters not at the cursor (some editors do > that). > > So I think the possibility that insertion happens not at cursor > should not be discarded right away: perhaps it makes sense to users > in some situations. (I'm not saying that the situations you are > discussing are such cases.) We have not discarded it right away, it currently is happening. But the usual semantics should be "least element of surprise". In case where a certain application would have different requirements, it would be better to add appropriate hooks instead of relying on undocumented artifacts that are surprising in their default behaviour. One could probably work with pre-command-hook and the like if one wanted to achieve something like that. That would seem more appropriate than trying to fiddle around with the before-string property of overlays. -- 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