From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: moving point and invisible text Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:56:49 -0500 Message-ID: <87lkwmc8tl.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> References: <43E9B8A0.1000109@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1139419710 9963 80.91.229.2 (8 Feb 2006 17:28:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:28:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 08 18:28:17 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6t49-0000yU-8J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:25:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6srz-0006cj-F1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:12:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F6ov1-0002hf-NC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:59:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F6ouS-0002Vp-JX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:59:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6osN-0001nu-9u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:56:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.54] (helo=tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F6ovg-0002NO-PK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:16 -0500 Original-Received: from alfajor ([67.71.117.239]) by tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20060208125650.OLPI20622.tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor>; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:56:50 -0500 Original-Received: by alfajor (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ADC4AD743B; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:56:49 -0500 (EST) Original-To: martin rudalics In-Reply-To: <43E9B8A0.1000109@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:23:44 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:50207 Archived-At: > Would it be difficult to implement this as: > "However, if a command moved point backward into or to the end of > invisible text, Emacs moves point backward to the beginning of that > text. If a command moved point forward into or to the beginning of > invisible text, Emacs moves point forward to the end of that text." The behavior depends on many things: whether the invisible text is replaced by ellipsis, whether the invisible property is front-sticky and/or rear-sticky, whether the command made changes to the buffer, ... My impression is that the text you quoted describes the behavior for invisible+intangible text rather than just invisible. > Otherwise I'd change the text to something like: > "However, if a command ends with point inside invisible text, the main > editing loop moves point to some position before or after the invisible > text." Sounds much more reasonable. If you want to be more precise, the only thing that might be worth mentioning is the driving principle behind the code: try to ensure that a subsequent self-insert-command will insert a visible char. Stefan