[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: kill ring menu

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: kill ring menu
Date: 31 May 2002 10:53:43 +0900

Colin Walters <address@hidden> writes:
> Or alternatively, we could view it as a primitive feature, much
> like default-text-properties.

Do people think this would be safe?  I guess the precedent of
`default-text-properties' suggests that it should be.

> In fact, this turns out to be entirely trivial to implement.
> See attached patch.

The patch gives higher a priority to `default-text-properties',
which I think is wrong -- that only should be used if there
really is no alternative except returning nil (IMHO).

Also, it seems like overlays should implement the same feature
(my general view is that, when possible, any special features
should work identically for T.P.s and overlays).  However that's
more complicated, for several reasons; e.g. the code to do
overlay lookup is duplicated in several places [this is stupid,
IMO, at least it seems like it should use some cpp macros or
something].  Also, because this feature allows several properties
to `interact', it would present the question of whether
properties could use property alternatives from the `other side'
(i.e. TPs from overlays, overlays from TPs); allowing that would
make the implementation even more complicated.

Anyway, personally I'd be happy with a text-property only
implementation at first.  What do other people think?

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

reply via email to

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