[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: invisible
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: invisible |
Date: |
28 Feb 2004 22:00:49 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
> 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.
Hmm... since 99% of the code is not written with `intangible' in mind
and most (if not all) that code would break given some appropriately chosen
addition of `intangible' property in the wrong place, and given the fact
that it's generally pretty difficult to fix that code short of let-binding
inhibit-point-motion-hooks, I'm not sure whether the problem is with that
99% of the code or with the `intangible' feature itself.
Stefan
- 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, 2004/02/28
- Re: invisible,
Stefan Monnier <=
- 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