[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: |
Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:22:19 -0500 |
> isearch-open-invisible will call a user-supplied hook in order to make
> invisible texts appear when searching. Those images I use in my
> buffer effectively make the original text invisible (for example, I
> replace $\frac{\pi}{3}$ by an image for the formula), so I want
> isearch to "open" them while going through the buffer. isearch will,
> however, only call isearch-open-invisible if the text/overlay is
> marked as invisible, so that is what I do.
>
> It would make more sense to modify isearch-open-invisible so it can
> deal with these images in another way. The invisible property should
> override the display property and make the text it covers not appear,
> not as itself, not modified by a display property.
I'm not completely sure about that. After all, why would someone
put a `display' property on an `invisible' overlay if the `invisible'
property means that the `display' property will be ignored anyway ?
In the case of `display' properties, I agree that your point of view
might be acceptable, but in the case of `before-string' and `after-string'
it is clearly not so, because it is very common to use an overlay
with both the `before-string' and the `invisible' property in order
to replace a piece of text with another. In such a case we again end
up with `invisible' text which does have a screen representation so that
having point before or after the invisible text is user-visible
(just as is the case with ellipsis), which implies that we again shouldn't
prevent the user from placing point immediately after the invisible text.
I hope you're beginning to see what I meant when I said that it's
not easy to determine when a piece of `invisible' text really has
no effect on screen. Checking the invisibility-spec is not enough:
you also have to check the presence of a `before-string' or an
`after-string' or a `display' (although this last one might disappear
if you decide that its behavior should be changed) and maybe there
are other cases.
Stefan
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, (continued)
- 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
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Miles Bader, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/17
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Miles Bader, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/23