Re: A question about overlay-modification

[Joakim Jalap <joakim.jalap@fastmail.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Joakim Jalap <joakim.jalap@fastmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:42:24 +0100
>> 
>> To me that looks like the insert-in-front-hooks get run for overlays
>> which start either at START or END, not only those which start at
>> END. Likewise (but the other way around) for insert-behind-hooks.
>
> Right.  But why do you think it's a problem?

I don't think it's a problem :) I was just trying to understand why it
is the way it is, and if it should actually be that way. And I guess the
answer is that it should :)

>> What am I missing here?
>
> Not sure.  Possible candidates:
>
>   . without the code you cite, overlays ending exactly at START and
>     starting exactly at END won't get their hooks called (see the
>     condition after the snippet you show

But the condition after the snippet I showed concerns different hooks.

>   . some overlays (so-called "empty" overlays) start and end at the
>     same buffer positions, so for them start and end positions are
>     indistinguishable

True, but the condition is an 'or', so I guess they would have their
hooks called anyway.

>> (As an aside, the doc string mentions insert-before-hooks and
>> insert-after-hooks, while the code has Qinsert_in_front_hooks and
>> Qinsert_behind_hooks. Is this intentional or just left overs?)
>
> It's one of those cases where the comments lie...

Then I will rewrite it when I get to there :)

> Thanks.

Thank you!

-- Joakim