[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should invisible imply intangible?
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Should invisible imply intangible? |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:06:17 -0500 |
> > The scenario is one where message header lines are marked as invisible
> > using overlays, the goal being to hide them.
>
> Any reason why those cannot explicitly use the `intangible' property ?
>
> Because the invisibility of these lines is controlled
> buffer-invisibility-spec, and that can't control the intangible
> property. This text is visible sometimes and invisible sometimes,
> and we want to change that *without* changing the text properties
> directly.
>
> The text should be intangible when it is invisible, and not when it is
> not. And none of that should require changing actual text properties.
Now it all makes a lot more sense, thank you.
I guess that's the part of the beginning of the discussion that I missed.
I'll see what code I can come up with,
Stefan
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, (continued)
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Miles Bader, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/15
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/23
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, David Kastrup, 2002/03/13
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/13
- Re: Should invisible imply intangible?, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/14