[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#20254: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same loca
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#20254: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same location |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT) |
> > Is there a rule behind this behavior?
>
> If an overlay is nested inside another, then it takes precedence.
> If neither is nested in the other then the precedence is not documented
> (IIRC it's arbitrarily taken to be "the one that's closest to
> point-min", and if start and end at the same position, then the
> precedence depends on the 100% arbitrary addresses of the overlays in
> memory).
In the case I described, the overlays are on exactly the same positions
(they coincide), so the last phrase applies, apparently: "100% arbitrary
addresses of the overlays in memory".
Any chance this implementation could be revisited, to do something
regular - predictable and user-manipulable? Or would that be too costly
in terms of performance? If it is feasible then please consider this
to be such an enhancement request.