[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries |
Date: |
Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:25:45 -0500 |
> In the continuation case, we could solve the problem for the
> end-of-buffer indicator by putting it on the right. But that won't
> help in the truncation case.
The code combines indicators for other cases; can't it do so in these?
What do you mean by "combines indicators"?
Do you mean that it displays multiple fringe bitmaps,
one across the other? Or some other kind of "combination"?
BTW, before the release I want to change the name of the fringe
bitmaps so they indicate the _meaning_ of the bitmaps, rather than
being named after the default appearance... the current names are very
confusing and inflexible if you change the appearance using
define-fringe-bitmap.
That change would go counter to other changes that we should make in
the longer term, making a mechanism for users to specify which bitmap
to use for a given purpose. For that to make sense, the actual names
of the bitmaps should reflect their appearance.
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/01
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/01
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/03
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Kim F. Storm, 2006/02/03
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/03
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Miles Bader, 2006/02/03
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Robert J. Chassell, 2006/02/04
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/04
- Re: default-indicate-buffer-boundaries, Juri Linkov, 2006/02/06