[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Should invisible imply intangible?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Should invisible imply intangible?
Date: 16 Mar 2002 02:25:39 +0100

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:

> > "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> > > 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 ?
> > 
> > Perhaps the properties come from different sources (e.g., one form a
> > text property, one from an overlay)?
> I was specifically referring to the case where both properties come
> from the same overlay.  I don't know what should (or does) happen
> when the two properties come from different sources.

I think it is reasonable to say that the overlay should not display
in case the entire range it covers (where the borders are decided
upon with the help of stickiness) can be said to lie within a closed
interval of invisibility.  If insertion immediately after the overlay
will not cause an invisible character, I would display entities from
entirely within the display property and the after-string.  If
insertion immediately before the overlay will not cause an invisible
character, the same holds for display property and before-string.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: address@hidden

reply via email to

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