Re: moving point over invisible and intangible text

[Luc Teirlinck]

Miles Bader wrote:

   By `undo the invisible-intangible subtlety mentioned in NEWS' do you
   mean to eliminate the force-to-one-end behavior of `intangible', and
   then recommend always using just `invisible'?

My answer to the first part of the question is still the same, but I
would quantify my answer to the second part a little bit.  I would not
completely "deprecate" making the same stretch of text both invisible
and intangible.  Since invisible text is not necessarily always going
to be invisible (buffer-invisibility-spec), there might be some
(probably rare) situations where the same stretch of text _really_
needs to be invisible _and_ intangible (when it needs to remain
intangible even when made visible by buffer-invisibility-spec).  My
suggestion would be, in those situations, to use Stefan's
intangibility implementation instead of the current
invisible-intangible feature while the text is invisible.  I believe
that Stefan's feature gets rid of the C-f problem anyway.  While the
text is visible, there is of course no need for the
invisible-intangible feature.  I believe that Stefan's implementation
and the invisible-intangible feature are pretty similar except for
their treatment of stickiness as to which side point is going to move.

Sincerely,

Luc.