[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more problems with line-move
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: more problems with line-move |
Date: |
14 Mar 2004 18:45:48 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
>> How does stickiness affect it? Perhaps telling people to use stickiness
>> in certain ways is a solution. Or perhaps this code should be changed
>> in regard to how it depends on stickiness.
> If the invisibility is sticky at one end, then this end is basically
> marked as "off-limits".
> Is there a rationale for depending on stickiness in this way?
The rationale is that we try to place point such that inserting a char will
result in a visible new char rather than an invisible one.
> It seems to me that when all stickiness properties are nil, which is
> the default case, we should get behavior similar to that of my
> invisible-intangible patch. Is that correct?
Yes. In that case the tail is sticky so point is either moved to A or to
B+1, just like in your invisible-intangible code.
Stefan
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/01
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/07
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/07
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/13
- Re: more problems with line-move,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/16
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/16