Re: Hl-line and visual-line

[Lennart Borgman]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:47 AM, David Reitter <address@hidden> wrote:
> On May 24, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Lennart Borgman wrote:
>>>
>>> is your definition of `bovl' and `eovl'.
>>
>> I mean the same difference as between beginning-of-line and
>> line-beginning-position (point-at-bol). (I prefer the shorter versions
>> here. They are easier to read and easy to understand.)
>>
>> The first one moves point, but the second does not.
>
> (save-excursion
>        (beginning-of-visual-line)
>        (point))
>
> The presence of such functions may reinforce the impression that they could 
> be used as "beg" and "end" parameters to any other function that will process 
> the text between "beg" and "end", in order to make it operate on the visual 
> line.
>
> This works for L2R or even R2L text, but as this thread has made clear, not 
> in the bidirectional case.
>
> So one would want a warning in their DOC strings, if those functions are 
> needed.

Good point of course. Maybe instead functions like
min-point-visual-line etc would better? Hm, that would be problematic
too because the direction of text might change from min to max on the
line. I think I am beginning to understand what the details here have
been about.

I think then it might be a bad idea to have those functions I suggest, yes.

A comment about that the text shown between beginning-of-visual-line
and end-... is not necessarily the text between those points when
bidirectional text is in the buffer would be good.

I did not realize that "bidi" meant bidirectional (i.e. text in both
directions) simultaneously before. I can realize Eli had some trouble
with this and the display engine. Great work.