Re: Should invisible imply intangible?

[Stefan Monnier]

> > > 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,
> 
> I don't think it appropriate to hack intangibility into the invisible
> property just because intangibility happens to be missing an API that
> invisibility has.
> 
> It will do no harm if the user gets his cursor moved out of invisible
> areas at command completion time (as is done with point adjustment),
> but the semantics of the intangibility property are much more
> severe.  It violates a lot of assumptions a programmer might make
> about how text behaves and should not be applied lightly.

I understand that.  When I say "intangible" I just mean that the
cursor will be somehow moved outside of the area.  When I mean intangibility
as is implemented by the `intangible' property, I say it explicitly.

I intend to provide the "invisible is intangible" by extending
the point adjustment function, as in my previous patch.


        Stefan