From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Brockman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Invisibility bug: `invisible' vs `display' Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:22:33 +0100 Message-ID: <87ps82gwdi.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> References: <87sldbtd50.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <87hctraqhh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87hctq6eyd.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <861wkucyxw.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87ps8e9k8e.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <87vehu99x7.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <863b4yxvu3.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172150587 21094 80.91.229.12 (22 Feb 2007 13:23:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:23:07 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 22 14:22:55 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 1HKDuQ-0007ba-SI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:22:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKDuQ-0001Iw-EM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:22:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HKDuF-0001IQ-7U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:22:43 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HKDuE-0001I6-Ce for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:22:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKDuE-0001Hz-77 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:22:42 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HKDuD-0004ha-MG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:22:42 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HKDu2-0004zG-IB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:22:30 +0100 Original-Received: from c-b1fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se ([85.226.254.177]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:22:30 +0100 Original-Received: from daniel by c-b1fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:22:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 56 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-b1fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se X-Face: :&2UWGm>e24)ip~'K@iOsA&JT3JX*v@1-#L)=dUb825\Fwg#`^N!Y*g-TqdS AevzjFJe96f@V'ya8${57/T'"mTd`1o{TGYhHnVucLq!D$r2O{IN)7>.0op_Y`%r;/Q +(]`3F-t10N7NF\.Mm0q}p1:%iqTi:5]1E]rDF)R$9.!,Eu'9K':y9^U3F8UCS1M+A$ 8[[[WT^`$P[vu>P+8]aQMh9giu&fPCqLW2FSsGs User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:M3o6wvZyXsHnbtHASwCZBuwLh7c= X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:66613 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes: > >> Mixing invisible and display properties -- with the desire to actually >> get the effects of the display property looks very obscure to me, and >> cannot image that any code is actually relying on such functionality. >> >> I think the change is safe, so I installed it. > > Sigh. If you use preview-latex on material where _some_ of it is made > invisible using TeX-fold-mode, the desired outcome will be to get the > display, and get it once only. The bug did not let you override the `invisible' property using the `display' property whenever you wanted; it _only_ let you do that at the start of invisible text --- clearly counter-intuitive, counter-useful, illogical, and erroneous. In other words, the bug prevents you from using `invisible' to turn text invisible (because that will fail if the first character happens to be an image or space or something), while not providing any generally useful feature in return. The reason I'm laboring this point is that you do not seem to appreciate the obscurity of the now-eliminated special case. Are you saying that preview-latex relies on being able to make visible the _first_ character in a stretch of invisible text by putting a `display' property on it? > I can't vouch for the patch being either a step in the > right or wrong direction. Ignoring for a moment the fact that the old behavior was very strange (it was almost exactly like the new behavior, except for an obscure special case), are there actually any arguments for having `display' override `invisible'? If you want some text to show, why not just set `invisible' to nil on that text? > But I'd clearly like to see fewer "I think it should work and can't > imagine anybody actually using it, anyway" patches at this point in > the game. One can never be sure that no code is relying on obscure bugs, but I _can_ imagine that quite some code is actually relying on the manual being right in that ``any non-`nil' `invisible' property makes a character invisible [...] if you don't alter the default value of `buffer-invisibility-spec'.''[1] -- Daniel Brockman [1] (info "(elisp)Invisible Text")