[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The unwarranted scrolling assumption

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: The unwarranted scrolling assumption
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:38:27 +0900

Lennart Borgman writes:
 > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <address@hidden> wrote:
 > > Lennart Borgman writes:
 > >
 > >  > I have done the best I can. I do not know what to do.
 > >
 > > Why don't you simply do what Eli asked, and test his patch?
 > I am going to do that but as far as I understand Eli has not in his
 > patch addressed the logic problems behind the "jumping scrolling".

Perhaps not, but testing it and saying "it doesn't work" gives you
much stronger claim on his attention to your patch.

 > No, but I am clearly a bit upset because no one seem to be interested
 > in the logic. Juanma asked me to explain again more clearly to Eli. I
 > did. Where is the answer to my more detailed explanation?

I've been working with Eli for about two decades.  He has never
trusted logic unaccompanied by data.  I happen to like that attitude,
but even if it doesn't work for you, he's unlikely to change.

 > I do not care about if my patch goes in. I just care about if the
 > problem gets fixed. And from David's testing it seems like it is not
 > fixed.

But David's testing used HELLO, and HELLO triggers bidi, and bidi has
its own problems IIUC; certainly Eli produced a patch for it.  There's
some evidence that they are different problems.  So you need to test

 > Why don't you take a look at it? I mean the logic. I think you should
 > have no difficulties to see how the patch will look.

Because I don't understand the relevant redisplay invariants, and
don't have time to study them.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]