|
From: | Daniel Colascione |
Subject: | bug#16413: 24.3.50; Inconsistent behavior of text property functions in narrowed buffer |
Date: | Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:35:01 -0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 |
On 01/11/2014 07:42 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Narrowing *is* generally useful for treating part of a buffer as a consistent unit, though, especially when that part is syntactically different from the rest of the buffer.Actually, from where I stand, narrowing is harmful. If I could get rid of it, I would.
Really? It's a very useful feature at a *user* level even if we ignore the lisp-level implications. Doesn't everyone whack C-x n d once in a while? Would you have implemented narrowing by putting invisible properties on the inaccessible region?
The reason is precisely because it means different things to different people in different contexts, and these things require subtly different behaviors which are mutually incompatible.
As I see it, there are generally two use cases: 1) I'm a user and want to limit my view of the buffer, and 2) I'm a lisp program and want to put ad-hoc bounds on various operations. I don't see why the two uses would be incompatible.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |