From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#22320: Overlays with an 'invisible property break stacking of overlay faces Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:27:30 -0500 Message-ID: <568F0272.9040105@live.com> References: <568D5721.7060709@live.com> <83io352xmm.fsf@gnu.org> <568E9A6A.2050201@live.com> <83ziwh1b4g.fsf@gnu.org> <568EBC49.6010405@live.com> <83r3ht162u.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cgMqfILuWwGW3wD9WQnMtXeRD5dl9TQr7" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1452212908 19746 80.91.229.3 (8 Jan 2016 00:28:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 00:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 22320@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 08 01:28:13 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aHKua-0002Qk-MY for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 01:28:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33441 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHKuZ-0001d4-NX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:28:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44119) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHKuV-0001cl-Ar for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:28:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHKuQ-0001nT-9r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:28:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:53859) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHKuQ-0001nJ-64 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:28:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aHKuP-0007VA-Ul for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:28:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:28:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22320 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 22320-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22320.145221286328805 (code B ref 22320); Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:28:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 22320) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Jan 2016 00:27:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42079 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aHKu7-0007UX-3i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:27:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.134]:51267) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aHKu5-0007UJ-0o for 22320@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:27:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [18.189.101.34] ([18.189.101.34]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M1eYM-1ZxCUJ1u3u-00tl1D; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 01:27:33 +0100 X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 In-Reply-To: <83r3ht162u.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:jhbiLnA4DtA9fqItXBEbDF7paNp1Va08x9t6ElZlNkmtnWr9B1r kq/VUaF67YJpFWH4zCNN7Q5bq3rqTcKLZyqTeKVvHCpMM+J/t/bSDREkb3kV44KSuLBEjmY Z0/O/+4/O5n5GLy8oKZ7qLIoPgRkhXC2wWE7f35RIqG6uxZTz7OtiRB85b3BIUehxKQYEhS viB4AGBZBM+ScIFNi+THA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:Lv97YBc9udY=:8YMsAhtvRrvxD2U+1ROsfw R2oTEWzPTZzU1F9g89wqJa8kS33AU8si8sNgLu7+VcVwUXg6L3gNjY6B/UgajKfNMKLDtDMrD 5TgCg26eLV3g0kbmV4sqAnaNBPitctEQY9xjZn+6UHS9kDuPrK1LPxBrOcMoJMNuW8oOideM3 +vAzHw/5FJj4OuHYklKlWMkU2Zo12A+MzdOSUy07+EbQTkCRMvgSYES6GJDsQ6XmU+p2kJ1V0 +p8giuIZ8FHXqne40pRJhyqsi2MFdXh49E13VHT81TL6vDA86yxQ4i1ewOQrHH5CEAOQDFK6Z kYL2Ha+Prv0mwztzkIDw4CcVVGh0vMQVetxkBplp0NIZfCUxBbsL6U3hsrqJ3uDuf8e4PrqU3 nVlPQjHEyPJ9UTQTXYd95liT/rD++TjsSGbr0JlLI+tFfcV7AgoaRTDFR4QaReubYscuqbV06 9ob2tJn4Mg4tCMTXmmAcmYfRDhTQOwlK4Ved0IuY/TbTE1kZEn3E3rEDmo+awCCNu0BibaPRV SVUsVXRvR5TcvOoV5FDvLTbRM1WBs4uwn/eDHz4rq2EbPbCPNyTiPlai1yYM+yNHxzQXI63U1 leSqQ6q3p7zqUvNca1lrk4kNwoABvAYdRnfp4NwiDDXwqsWefkMH++g+aIsd7qJRtQ1LQuiwP j1RqNamM9NvdOlHvNkqGNf6sPQfVKl7vTaxJ1SxuLHCRQCRZhAEHFxbXdQF9sAnXMSAk= X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:111343 Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --cgMqfILuWwGW3wD9WQnMtXeRD5dl9TQr7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/07/2016 03:35 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> In fact, I wonder if this isn't two problems we're looking at: >>> the first one is falling back to default, and the second one is >>> that falling back to default ignores the surrounding overlays. My >>> ideal solution would be to use the first hidden character (or >>> make it configurable), but even without this I feel that it would >>> be a progress for the *face* of the ellipses to be reset to >>> default, and then for that face to be merged with overlays. In >>> other word one would consider that ellipses always have the >>> default face, plus overlays that cover the full ellipsis. > > Any non-default face is always merged with the default, so saying=20 > let's merge it with the default is asking for a no-op. It will > change nothing. Yes, sorry for being unclear. Hopefully the following is more clear. For = any overlay/invisible section pair there are five cases, right? 1. The overlay does not intersect with the invisible area. No problems he= re. 2. The overlay covers a few characters before the invisible area and the = first few characters of the invisible area, but not the last ones. 3. The overlay covers a few characters after the invisible area and the l= ast few characters of the invisible area, but not the first ones. 4. The overlay is a subset of the invisible area. 5. The overlay is a superset of the invisible area. The current solution doesn't think in these terms; instead, it ignores al= l overlays for the ellipses, unless the first hidden character has the sa= me face as the preceding one. Always applying the face of the first character to the ellipsis means app= lying to the ellipsis the faces of overlays in categories 2, 5, and 4 if = they cover the first character. You pointed out that the special case of = 4 is confusing. Another option (the one I was trying to explain above) is to apply to the= ellipsis only the faces of overlays in category 5. I feel that this shou= ld be rather uncontroversial (don't you think?). The problem with this way of thinking about overlays and invisible text i= s that it doesn't necessarily map directly to the implementation. IIUC, t= he current implementation computes faces without taking invisibility into= account for the first character before and after the left boundary of th= e invisible section, and then compares them. At this point it's too late = to merge certain faces but not others. Thanks again for your explanations and your time. --cgMqfILuWwGW3wD9WQnMtXeRD5dl9TQr7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIbBAEBAgAGBQJWjwJyAAoJEPqg+cTm90wjIdkP906vSdnU0lrMrll0lPFm1TUo evN7G5vGFCIra8lEBZvZFOQdlhcrnOHXF8h+yCkdIDIaENp2EH34EDu71PgXOvvJ C3c3BKSkTibNdbRhwXC60GhUnXEQw24a9dhm8x23uYuQTxSJP8gwOebiAHzR0ywT PRqonavIN/d4dWqIaYWJxOZPNyhziYiq6pcbhdvQq+WRMDRojfoveTKvM2xlA0Hs 43591v8HGk34/QFg9K4XSGaIJSQJaxbBODk6rCnC/XSDwrQyGLHdx6S64b/CGPoE +92838ukhQKK0yL4K3cf6mU6VdWisogAW0qqCa842rZnM4++XFAEmEQUuoi+a6p7 LM1cS7VRkdhQAokT0qkC96/0pAXwJtxrZ7pA4gGS50aMhzt4AK0SgsIg2cQBlspR 82DxNeCwlmyq08cmMgA1Xfdh4PafXO4hHOM0acGX4efcaV98TxkqVJ+BfTMAeMYb gUz6Z8Fs6sl7vqSAL7pSjqwaig6bSF06zfam7BK0I5MMfjRfQLkMKvLgTyjjwEM3 kyjn/nO/JWEx1ZQmuf9praWfxORQA9EBxb/sgKNBbc9BHdCCWy7TC/bf5IxOJJeP DvJexAyq+OSTN1GV+GlWluDquQu/pNYI0k9DdvQGgelKMhu0uSZdCPDZPj2rrb0u sjFhk1m+qZCkf+PZg7o= =14Xf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cgMqfILuWwGW3wD9WQnMtXeRD5dl9TQr7--