Re: invisible

[martin rudalics]

> SET_PT_BOTH should only pay attention to `invisible' in the case where
> there is also `intangible' properties involved.

The emphasis is on _should_ I presume.

> IIRC you said this
> thread was not using intangibility but only invisibility, if so, then
> it's a bug in SET_PT_BOTH.

Please have a look.  I attached a short version of my canonical file.
With Emacs -Q put this in scratch, eval the progn, move to the beginning
of the third visible line where it says "line7", and type C-p twice.
The (forward-line -1) of the second C-p makes the "bug" apparent
(although it occurs already in the first C-p).

> If you do use intangibility, then indeed all bets are off, and
> odd/undesirable results are to be expected (yes, I'm biased).

I hope my attachment makes it clear that I don't use intangibility.

martin, who fully shares your biases in this regard.

line1
line2
line3
line4
line5
line6
line7

(progn
  (add-text-properties 12 13 '(invisible t))
  (add-text-properties 18 19 '(invisible t))
  (add-text-properties 24 25 '(invisible t))
  (add-text-properties 30 31 '(invisible t))
  (setq line-move-ignore-invisible nil))