[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#8568: 24.0.50; fringe-indicator-alist doc
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#8568: 24.0.50; fringe-indicator-alist doc |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:53:41 +0300 |
> From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:31:14 -0700
>
> 1. (elisp) Fringe Indicators: "`top-bottom" is missing the closing
> single-quote, for some reason: "...used only for the `bottom' and
> `top-bottom indicators when the...".
Yep, a missing quote.
> 2. There is no real explanation of LEFT1 and RIGHT1. The pseudo
> explanation is unintelligible: "The LEFT1 or RIGHT1 bitmaps are used
> only for the `bottom' and `top-bottom' indicators when the last (only)
> line has no final newline." That talks about the situation when they
> are used, but it doesn't explain what they are
This is supposed to be explained in the beginning of the section:
Emacs can indicate the buffer boundaries--that is, the first and
last line in the buffer--with angle icons when they appear on the
screen. In addition, Emacs can display an up-arrow in the fringe
to show that there is text above the screen, and a down-arrow to
show there is text below the screen.
Are the names of each of these all that's missing to fill in the
blanks?
> or how they are used.
This part I actually don't understand. What do you mean "_how_ they
are used"? by drawing them in the fringes, of course! What am I
missing?
> 3. This var maps logical indicators to bitmaps. But we need to describe
> each logical indicator. What does it mean? When is it appropriate to
> use it?
Same answer as for #2, and the same text that's supposed to explain
that.
> But what about `overlay-arrow'? Its description is "Overlay arrow
> indicator" Well, duh, but what does that mean? When do you use it?
> What is it intended for?
Type "i overlay-arrow RET" and you will see. Will a cross-reference
there be enough?
> 4. The node ends with "Standard fringe bitmaps for indicators:" and a
> list of bitmap symbols. A bitmap symbol such as `bottom-left-angle' is
> meaningless as just a name. If we can't have images then at least
> provide one-line descriptions of what each looks like.
We _can_ have images, it's just a bit tedious to produce them. As for
description... it's not easy. Perhaps you could suggest the proper
descriptions, after looking at each one of the bitmaps.