From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#31067: 27.0.50; After-string hidden by subsequent invisible text Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:55:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8360562db3.fsf@gnu.org> <83zi2h22pu.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522943654 11542 195.159.176.226 (5 Apr 2018 15:54:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:54:14 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 31067@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 05 17:54:10 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f47DF-0002sD-49 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:54:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38580 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47FK-0001pX-Ad for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:56:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38189) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47F7-0001nQ-70 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:56:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47F4-0005F3-5a for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:56:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59919) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47F4-0005EW-12 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:56:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f47F3-0006EH-QX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:56:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 15:56:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 31067 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 31067-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B31067.152294374823925 (code B ref 31067); Thu, 05 Apr 2018 15:56:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 31067) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2018 15:55:48 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39583 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f47Ep-0006Dp-Ub for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:55:48 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:36761) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f47Eo-0006Dg-0M for 31067@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:55:47 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w35FtiFg028926; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:55:44 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E8D82604B9; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:55:43 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83zi2h22pu.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 05 Apr 2018 16:38:05 +0300") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6258=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6258> : inlines <6549> : streams <1783281> : uri <2620949> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:144931 Archived-At: >> > IOW, the question is what should happen when the end-point of the >> > overlay with after-string is in invisible text? >> If some (or all) of the end of the overlay-with-after-string is made >> invisible, then the situation is much less clear and I could see >> arguments either way, but if I get to choose then I think it makes sense >> to consider that the after string is "attached" to the end of the >> overlay, i.e. if the end of the overlay is invisible then so is the >> after-string. > But that's exactly what happens in your original example. Hmmm.... not that I can see: the overlay covers "text" and none of it is hidden. I guess you could pay attention to the stickiness of the boundaries, but in my example the end of the overlay-with-after-string is not sticky, so you could say that it ends right after "t" and not on the immediately following "(dimensionless) point". Also I changed my test so that the beginning of the invisible overlay is not sticky (so that the "(dimensionless) point" between "t" and "\n" is supposedly not affected by this overlay): (defun foo () (interactive) (with-current-buffer "*scratch*" (add-to-invisibility-spec '(foo . t)) (let ((beg (point))) (insert "text") (let ((ol1 (make-overlay beg (point)))) (overlay-put ol1 'after-string "!after!") (overlay-put ol1 'evaporate t))) (let ((beg (point))) (insert "\nhidden") (let ((ol1 (make-overlay beg (point) nil t))) (overlay-put ol1 'invisible 'foo) (overlay-put ol1 'evaporate t))))) but the result is still the same. And think this one is even more clearly a bug, because according to stickiness the two overlays "don't touch" (as can be tested by carefully moving point right after the "t" and inserting "-" which gives you a display of "text!after!-" showing that the "-" was inserted between the two overlays rather than into the first or into the second or into both). > Btw, "some or all of the end" is a strange wording, Indeed, I added "or all" after the fact and did it poorly. I meant "if the last few chars covered by the overlay (or the whole text covered by the overlay) is made invisible ...". Stefan