[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should invisible imply intangible?
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Should invisible imply intangible? |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:56:16 -0500 |
> > I could agree to it but only in the case where the screen
> representation
> > is really empty, so that both cursor positions are displayed in the
> same
> > way.
> >
> > That is the case we are talking about.
>
> I do not know how to detect that case robustly.
>
> Whenever the text is invisible and does not display an ellipsis.
> The value of TEXT_PROP_MEANS_INVISIBLE will tell you whether this
> is the case.
That much I know, but the problem is when there's some other property
like a `display' property that ends up displaying something.
> But some texts can have both an image and the invisible property.
>
> Shouldn't that make the image invisible? The image property should
> have no effect when the text is invisible. (It doesn't matter what
> the text wou;d looks like, if you don't see it.)
>
> Is that not what happens now?
It seems not since David uses display+invisible when replacing TeX source
code with an image of the output in his preview-latex package (the `invisible'
property seems useless at first, but he uses it so he can use the
isearch-open-invisible hook).
> In my experience
> most cases where I encounter invisible text (and where point can easily
> end up inside the invisible text) is with things like outline-minor-mode
> and hs-minor-mode (i.e. text replaced by ellisps), so that's what I
> consider
> as the most important case to handle.
>
> What you want is right for that case, the case where an ellipsis is
> displayed. I am talking about what to do in the other case, the case
> where the text is not replaced by an ellipsis.
>
> It looks like you have another kind of scenario in mind, but I don't know
> what it looks like.
>
> The scenario is one where message header lines are marked as invisible
> using overlays, the goal being to hide them.
Any reason why those cannot explicitly use the `intangible' property ?
Stefan
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, (continued)
Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/04
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/05
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/05
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/05
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/09
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/09
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/11
- Message not available
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/11
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/13
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/13
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/14
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/16
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/16
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/18
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/18
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/03/19
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/19