[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should invisible imply intangible?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Should invisible imply intangible? |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:58:26 -0700 (MST) |
That much I know, but the problem is when there's some other property
like a `display' property that ends up displaying something.
If the text is invisible, it should not display *anything* no matter
what other properties it has (including `display', `after-string' and
`before-string'). An invisible piece of text should not contribute to
the screen contents (except for the ellipsis, if any).
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).
Isn't it the case that specifying an image with a property on some text
replaces the text with the image? I think so.
If that is so, I don't understand what purpose this invisible property
is supposed to serve. Can you explain? I cannot figure out, from the
mere reference to isearch-open-invisible, what he is trying to do.
Anyway, it is clearly a bug if invisible fails to completely suppress
the display of the text it covers.
> 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 ?
Because the invisibility of these lines is controlled
buffer-invisibility-spec, and that can't control the intangible
property. This text is visible sometimes and invisible sometimes,
and we want to change that *without* changing the text properties
directly.
The text should be intangible when it is invisible, and not when it is
not. And none of that should require changing actual text properties.
- 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, 2002/03/12
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?,
Richard Stallman <=
- 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
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/20