[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: M-w, then C-y. C-y inserts text properties that aren't on original.

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: M-w, then C-y. C-y inserts text properties that aren't on original.
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:56:35 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

Hi, Eli,

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 06:12:12AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:59:51 +0000
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>

> > > Here's one idea: make a deep search through the properties of the
> > > value of the `category' property, looking for any of the properties
> > > in `yank-excluded-properties'.  If found, do the replacement we do
> > > now.

> > I'm not in favour of anything like this.

> > The way the current replacement works, it replaces category
> > properties with "hard" properties.  These "hard" properties then foul
> > up future category properties, should you apply a different category,
> > or change the properties on the category symbol.

> > As Richard said back in 2002, it's a difficult problem to fix,
> > because there's no general or canonical case.  I think a better way
> > would have been simply to drop category properties.  But we've got
> > what we've got, so why not just stick with it?

> I thought you wanted to fix the original problem, didn't you?  So I
> suggested one way of having it fixed.  If we leave things as they are,
> the problem you are having will stay as well, no?

I was wanting both to fix "my" problem and fix the ostensible bug which
was messing up the text properties.

I've decided to fix the CC Mode problem by ad hoc means, rather than try
to push through a quite big change to TP handling.  It means that certain
characters in a C++ Mode buffer will get text properties of
(risky-local-variable t), but that won't harm anything and will serve as
a reminder of the ridiculousness of life, the universe, and everything.

Do you think that the idea you suggest (above) would be better than the
current way?  I dislike it because it looks more complicated, and I think
it would be as least as difficult to code round as the current way.

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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