[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: |
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:41:41 -0700 (MST) |
> Also, as David Kastrup has mentioned repeatedly, intangible text tends
> to break lots of things...
>
> I don't think so.
Please, Richard, try to remember the lengthy discussion we've had about
that.
You seem to agree with my conclusion:
In practice, it's generally a non-issue because most uses of intangible
text are restricted to a particular context so that this intangible
text is only accessed by a small body of elisp code.
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/03
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/03
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/04
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/05
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/05
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/05
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/09
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/09
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/11