[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp
From: |
Basil L. Contovounesios |
Subject: |
bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp |
Date: |
Fri, 03 May 2019 18:22:39 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>> When asked for a list of markers between BEG and END, it makes sense to
>> me to return a list which ascends from BEG to END.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> IOW, in buffer-position order.
Yes.
>> If it really matters, we could either return the
>> order of BUF_MARKERS unchanged,
>
> Unchanged from what?
>From the order returned by BUF_MARKERS, i.e. the internal chain of
markers pointing to the current buffer. This order presumably reflects,
to an extent, the order in which markers were created/chained, but I'm
not sure about this.
>> or accept an additional argument which tells the
>> function how to sort.
>
> Have not really been following this thread, and
> not weighing in on whether such a function is
> needed or whether users need access to markers
> created by C.
>
> But as for the order of such a list: It's trivial
> for users (any Lisp code) to sort by buffer position
> or anything else, so why would the default order
> be by buffer position?
That is the order I would intuitively expect in any enumeration of a
partially ordered set of buffer artifacts in a given region, unless
otherwise stated.
What other order would make sense when talking about markers within a
given region?
> What's _not_ available to users or Lisp code, I
> think, is the order of marker creation or even the
> order of last setting. I'd think that
> marker-creation order (either direction) would be
> a better default sort order for this, no?
Perhaps when enumerating markers pointing at a single position, yes.
But I think that ordering would make less sense when talking about
markers within a given region. Assuming something like marker-list is
deemed a useful addition (which is not yet clear), perhaps there should
be two separate functions akin to overlays-in and overlays-at, with
different sorting options and/or default policies.
Thanks,
--
Basil
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2019/05/02
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/05/02
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2019/05/02
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/05/02
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2019/05/03
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Drew Adams, 2019/05/03
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp,
Basil L. Contovounesios <=
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Drew Adams, 2019/05/03
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/03
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Drew Adams, 2019/05/03
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/03
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Drew Adams, 2019/05/03
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Richard Stallman, 2019/05/04
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Mauro Aranda, 2019/05/03
- bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, martin rudalics, 2019/05/04
bug#35536: 27.0.50; Expose buffer's marker list to Elisp, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/02