[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: invisible
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: invisible |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:45:54 -0600 (CST) |
Stefan Monnier wrote:
The main reason for extending the code to the `invisible' property was
precisely so as to make `intangible' less often necessary since
`intangible' tends to introduce significant problems when interacting with
code not specifically written with the `intangible' property in mind.
Yes, but that code not specifically written with the `intangible'
property in mind will still cause problems in those cases where the
`intangible' property is necessary and hence still should be rewritten
with the `intangible' property specifically in mind, regardless.
Sincerely,
Luc.
- Re: invisible, (continued)
- Re: invisible, Klaus Zeitler, 2004/02/26
- Re: invisible, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible, Miles Bader, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible, Stefan Monnier, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible, Stefan Monnier, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible,
Luc Teirlinck <=
- Re: invisible, Stefan Monnier, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible, Miles Bader, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible, Richard Stallman, 2004/02/29
- Re: invisible, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/02/28