Re: linum.el: problem (bug ?) fix and improvement

[Toru TSUNEYOSHI]

From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: linum.el: problem (bug ?) fix and improvement
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:26:04 -0300
Message-ID: <address@hidden>

>>>> I have a case that I make unimportant text invisible temporarily, to
>>>> know only important information.
>>> Any reason why you don't use the ellipsis (see buffer-invisibility-spec)?
>> I can't check the ellipsis easily, if `truncate-lines' is non-nil and
>> the ellipsis text is truncated.
> 
> Indeed, that can be a problem.  Tho, if you make "foo\n" (as you seem to
> do) invisible, the "..." will end up at the beginning of the line rather
> than its end.  So it'll probably be too visible rather than not enough.
> 

Yes.
In that case, I would not use the ellipsis.

> BTW, making "\nfoo" invisible instead of "foo\n" should circumvent the
> current mis-numbering problem which your patch tries to circumvent.
> 

Sorry, I am a little tired of trying.

>> (In this case, I must scroll the window horizontally many times.)
> 
> C-e does the trick if you're on the right line.
> 

I see.
(Although, the ellipsis is not always at the end of a line.
So I must scroll ...)

However, I still wish to know the invisibility information at a glance.
Currently, it is useful to check the result by `hide-sublevels' or
`hide-body' on `outline-minor-mode'.

>> If linum-mode provides information about the invisible text, I can check
>> the information very easily, I think.
> 
> I understand that it makes sense in your particular case, but it seems
> too tightly linked to a particular use of invisible (and this particular
> use of invisible is in turn tightly linked to linum in order to make it
> bearable).  So I'm not convinced this belongs in linum.el as it stands.
> OTOH maybe we could install a patch to linum.el that provides a hook
> that you could use to add the same functionality.
> 
> 
>         Stefan
> 

That's right.
(I will use the function for my own solution.)

Thank you.