[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: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:03:37 -0700 (MST)

    > However, subsequently I realized it should be somewhat different.  The
    > buffer position just after the invisible text should be treated as
    > part of the range where point cannot be.  (This is how invisible,
    > intangible text is handled now.)

    But that would make it very awkward for the user to insert text
    immediately after the invisible area.

That is ok.  When text is invisible, it is very confusing
if point can be either before or after.  It is much better
if point can only be on one of those two places.

Please do it that way.

    If we still want to provide the illusion that the text really isn't
    there at all, then we should treat either the buffer position
    immediately before or immediately after as part of the intangible text,
    depending on the direction of the motion (so that both positions
    can still be reached "easily").

This behavior of this would be similar in most respects to what I ask
for, except less predictable.  So what I designed seems to be clearly

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]