From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: invisible Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:10:21 +0100 Message-ID: <474B1A1D.4050901@gmx.at> References: <20040225.150142.12214540.kazu@iijlab.net> <200402282128.i1SLSuY15359@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200402290224.i1T2Oip15705@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <87sl3fdqs3.fsf@escher.local.home> <87zlxc5r2f.fsf@escher.local.home> <474059CD.1060107@gmx.at> <87r6ihi1z7.fsf@escher.local.home> <4746E2CF.4010604@gmx.at> <87k5o8q0y5.fsf@escher.local.home> <4747312D.7020605@gmx.at> <87fxywpuuy.fsf@escher.local.home> <47474B8C.9020806@gmx.at> <87bq9kpnqd.fsf@escher.local.home> <4747EFE8.5090405@gmx.at> <87k5o7mnhw.fsf@escher.local.home> <4748A52C.6090407@gmx.at> <474A7D7E.20504@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1196104440 9156 80.91.229.12 (26 Nov 2007 19:14:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:14:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, Stephen Berman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 26 20:14:07 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 1IwjPA-0005zg-33 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:14:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwjOu-0004W4-LL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:13:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IwjOD-0003sM-04 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:13:05 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IwjOB-0003r4-P8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:13:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwjOB-0003qp-Ki for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:13:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IwjOB-0006mr-5A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:13:03 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2007 19:13:02 -0000 Original-Received: from N942P018.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.61.178]) [62.47.61.178] by mail.gmx.net (mp008) with SMTP; 26 Nov 2007 20:13:02 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+H8U8hNZiHRZ2w1o3ExnuqfxKaX3/IN9Uj4zBK+z +gV7pLPtnkGZ0w User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:84159 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:20373 Archived-At: > The point-adjustment already tries to move point to the non-sticky side > of an invisible text so that text inserted is indeed visible. When I do `facemenu-set-invisible' on a region, subsequently inserted text is invisible. I have hardly an opinion on that because I didn't even know about this function before. But I think inserted text should go before the invisible text if `point' was at the beginning and after invisible text if `point' was at the end of the region. > The rear-nonsticky change proposed above will just make both ends > non-sticky so the point-adjustment will not have a preference and will > sometimes choose one sometimes the other. I agree that would be bad. Is that the way it behaves now when I set the rear-nonsticky property? > In general facemenu-set-invisible can't know whether the user will want > to insert text "precisely at the beginning of the visible text" or > "precisely at the end of the visible text". In general you're right. I was referring to the effect immediately after executing that command. > This said, I think you're right: the rear-nonsticky property would be > beneficial for the case where the invisible text is shown as an > ellipsis, in which case the user can indeed choose where she inserts > the text. That would be fine.