[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill
From: |
Colin Walters |
Subject: |
Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill |
Date: |
07 Apr 2002 23:09:48 -0400 |
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 08:20, Miles Bader wrote:
> What I'm arguing for is to keep the current interfaces, because I think
> they're both useful. Whether or not they use the same underlying
> mechanism is an implementation detail (about which others are more
> knowledgable than I).
No, it's not just an implementation detail! With the current text
properties/overlays separation, it is going to be a big pain to change
ibuffer to use overlays. Maybe there is a better way to do it, but I
really don't see one (if someone does, please speak up!). And it will
certainly be slower, as you noted in a different thread. Not only that,
but it will generate more garbage: I will have to cons up at least one
cell for each string returned, plus bind lots of variables, *and* add
properties to the overlay one at a time.
If we had extents like mechanism as the underlying implementation of
both text properties and overlays, then I could fall back to just using
the raw extents interface to solve my problem.
> We've already got an implementation that provides both; why change (but
> see below)?
It provides both, as totally separate things. I want to be able to pick
and choose from the features of each.
> >From your description, it sounds like you would be happy if [certain]
> text-properties could be optionally suppressed from being copied by a
> user; true?
That would solve this particular problem, yes.
> What I'm not sure of why you seem to have come to the conclusion that a
> whole-sale reworking of the way text-properties and overlays work is
> required.
I guess the only thing I can say to this is that extents make a whole
lot more sense to me. I agree with you that text properties and
overlays cover the majority of cases, but I think there is something
more fundamental lying behind both of them.
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, (continued)
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Colin Walters, 2002/04/06
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Miles Bader, 2002/04/06
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, John Wiegley, 2002/04/06
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Colin Walters, 2002/04/06
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Miles Bader, 2002/04/06
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Colin Walters, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Miles Bader, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Colin Walters, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Alex Schroeder, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Miles Bader, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill,
Colin Walters <=
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Miles Bader, 2002/04/08
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Colin Walters, 2002/04/09
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Richard Stallman, 2002/04/10
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Richard Stallman, 2002/04/09
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Colin Walters, 2002/04/09
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, John Wiegley, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Colin Walters, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Richard Stallman, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Colin Walters, 2002/04/07
- Re: Question about copy-region-as-kill, Richard Stallman, 2002/04/09