Re: [O] Backward incompatible outline-invisible-p change in emacs master for Org

[Paul Rankin]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, at 03:18 AM, Kaushal Modi wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:02 PM Bastien Guerry <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > The question is: why this patch in the first place?  Paul authored it
> > and I committed it, so I should know--but I don't.  Maybe Paul know or
> > you know better?
> >
> 
> I later found the reason for that commit here:
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=24073
> 
> Here is the emacs -Q recipe that Paul posted on that debbugs report:
> 
> 1. emacs -Q
> 2. insert ";;; heading"
> 3. M-: (outline-on-heading-p)
>     => t
> 4. C-a
> 5. M-: (put-text-property (point) (1+ (point)) 'invisible 'foo)
> 6. M-; (outline-on-heading-p)
>     => nil
> 
> Expected results:
> 
> (outline-on-heading-p)
>     => t
> 
> Actual results:
> 
> (outline-on-heading-p)
>     => nil
> 
> This shows the relation between outline-on-heading-p and
> outline-invisible-p:
> 
> (defun outline-on-heading-p (&optional invisible-ok)
>   "Return t if point is on a (visible) heading line.
> If INVISIBLE-OK is non-nil, an invisible heading line is ok too."
>   (save-excursion
>     (beginning-of-line)
>     (and (bolp) (or invisible-ok (not (outline-invisible-p)))
> (looking-at outline-regexp))))
> 
> Basically the expectation is that a outline heading be not marked as
> "invisible" by any 'foo invisible property. Outline headings should be
> marked invisible by only 'outline invisible property.
> 
> Also as the function is prefixed with "outline-", that kind of makes sense.
> 
> On the other hand, in org, we need a function that returns non-nil for
> *any* invisible property. So that commit breaks org's expectation.
> 
> This looks fine,
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> > but I'd rather revert the faulty Emacs commit if
> > it is not necessary.
> >
> > Until Paul enlighten us, I'll have a deeper look.
> >
> 
> After reviewing debbugs 24073, the commit looks correct for emacs master
> and outline package. WDYT?

Glad the mystery looks like it's solved.

Btw I looped in the orgmode list back here 
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2016-09/msg00029.html

Thanks.

--
www.paulwrankin.com