From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:25:31 -0400 Message-ID: References: <679ab47b-6e3e-65e6-f955-be58d59ed092@yandex.ru> <83sghhss8v.fsf@gnu.org> <671b5b41-663d-5ab9-f022-dc6c5ce54dd0@yandex.ru> <83r1x1sqkx.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfn9s63n.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7xvqsgc.fsf@gnu.org> <90749329-ccb1-f96e-29c0-b4ecbb81d1d4@yandex.ru> <837dyrqews.fsf@gnu.org> <20200407201018.GD4009@ACM> <835zeaqz8q.fsf@gnu.org> <66e2602a-0ab6-3f27-1c4d-de8221dcccdb@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="30454"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rrandresf@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru, Alan Mackenzie , Eli Zaretskii To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 08 16:26:30 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMBeu-0007mZ-TV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 16:26:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36736 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMBet-0003uY-Sm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:26:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMBeA-0003KE-JB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:25:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMBe9-0002KP-N8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:25:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:54592) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMBe8-0002Jo-58; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:25:40 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B842F81053; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ED54A80DDA; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:25:33 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1586355933; bh=zWCPhaYmySNleWVKZQ+61nQskGhLYvQeCJKcLCpMBag=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=YfSpofsPGtCTrolhIjPP40VuTXM7Hh9P+X1KeUJ5Ftr6oumkw0hRmcMBzQgs32mra XNaPHJX6CUc11ZXRX3YgUGy3zo1/lyXrgkrxp37qm7TMe0RZGX/vkWYoeV0fSEGyR1 cK1n2msADbL/xaP4YBHjeuabJXKQipsl658kOGwf01nm17dXwpg/+Q9dJicqvlka/C 9m3SSL8t1+K5cIBGGGkuYmfM/cf/YZuIz9VpXZRNaLXSFGZRluDmOTFo9ZFwcmRpuy kajOBXE/Kh+IXHFDSgswpE+shonXrdVjI9YKfd5DEMMQ7pnVCDScdfvZqiSa3x8Njc vUBolamgH6y6w== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F92D12038D; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:25:33 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <66e2602a-0ab6-3f27-1c4d-de8221dcccdb@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:38:30 +0200") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:246671 Archived-At: > What's bothering me more is that when I put an overlay somewhere in a > buffer and eventually remove it, underlying text properties provided by > the font locking mechanism are never restored Overlays should usually not affect the way font-lock *puts* properties. So when you remove the overlay, there should be no need to re-run font-lock, and the mere redisplay should make the underlying text properties (previously installed by font-lock) visible. But all this depends on specifics, so without knowing what kind of overlay you're putting/removing when/where/how it's hard to know where's the problem. IOW: make it a bug report. Stefan