From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill Date: 07 Apr 2002 21:20:55 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <877knjd7iw.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> References: <87ofh09xjq.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> <200204050602.g3562Dl18586@aztec.santafe.edu> <87bscx7rlf.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> <200204061732.g36HWSb19584@aztec.santafe.edu> <87k7rkmuk0.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> <87zo0gbfb2.fsf@emacswiki.org> <1018138376.27236.49.camel@space-ghost> <87bscwe36t.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <874rio5ide.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> <1018154686.1186.13.camel@space-ghost> <87ofgwcdgm.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <1018157567.1186.15.camel@space-ghost> <87bscwc84q.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <1018165593.4269.27.camel@space-ghost> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018182276 27268 127.0.0.1 (7 Apr 2002 12:24:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 12:24:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 16uBil-00075h-00 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 14:24:35 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16uBwg-0004TH-00 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 14:38:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16uBiN-0004PP-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 08:24:11 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp01.fields.gol.com ([203.216.5.131]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16uBhg-0004Mq-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 08:23:29 -0400 Original-Received: from tc-2-164.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp ([203.216.25.164] helo=tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp) by smtp01.fields.gol.com with esmtp (Magnetic Fields) id 16uBhe-0001FC-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 21:23:27 +0900 Original-Received: by tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 591D13054; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:20:55 +0900 (JST) Original-To: Colin Walters System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: <1018165593.4269.27.camel@space-ghost> Original-Lines: 35 X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2452 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2452 Colin Walters writes: > Indeed. But extents provide these same advantages. And it should not > be difficult to write a text properties API on top of an extents > mechanism. What I'm arguing for is to keep the current interfaces, because I think they're both useful. Whether or not they use the same underlying mechanism is an implementation detail (about which others are more knowledgable than I). > So extents give you the best of all possible worlds, AFAICS. We've already got an implementation that provides both; why change (but see below)? > Since I have the feeling that we are at this point arguing by repeated > assertion, let me paste here the description of the problem I ran into > using overlays for ibuffer, when RMS originally asked me why I thought > overlays had a poor interface: >From your description, it sounds like you would be happy if [certain] text-properties could be optionally suppressed from being copied by a user; true? I think that would be a useful extension to text-properties. What I'm not sure of why you seem to have come to the conclusion that a whole-sale reworking of the way text-properties and overlays work is required. Cheers, -Miles -- Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.