Re: Tick Reduction

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru,  stefankangas@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:29:04 +0100
> 
> > But "is over" seems to mean "we are in the next string", not "we are
> > at the end of the string that needs to be stretched".  that's what the
> > bufpos == 0 test does.  Right?  If so, this is too late: what if
> > there's no "next string"?
> 
> If there's no "next string" we have nothing to stretch for, so that's
> fine.

Yes, we do: the last string.

The padding of a string should not depend on whether there's another
string after it.  The padding is a display feature: if some Lisp puts
the property on a string, that string should look the same, with the
same padding, regardless of where on the screen it is located, and
regardless of whether there's some text after it.

> (If we want to extend the face over the stretch, then this has to be
> done differently.)

Which face?  This feature is not about faces, it is about padding text
so that it takes at least X pixels on display.

> > ??? The "foo" part has the display property, so it is that something
> > which needs to be stretched.  That there's some more text after it
> > shouldn't affect how "foo" is displayed, right?  Or what am I missing?
> 
> The stretch comes after "foo", so I'm not sure what you're asking.

I'm asking why the stretch isn't produced when there's nothing but EOB
after "foo".  I expect to see the stretch between the end of "foo" and
EOB.