[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?)
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?) |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:07:07 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> It would be wrong for preview-latex, probably one of the most
>> important applications extensively using the display property.
>>
>> With all due respect, I have not been shown a reason to consider
>> that package tremendously important. All user program are important
>> to some extent, but I don't see why this one should be overridingly
>> so.
>
> Oh, I was not as immodest to claim one of the most important
> applications whatsoever, but only among a particular subset. It
> actually happens to be rather easy to be "one of the most important
> applications [among those that are] _extensively_ using the display
> property", since there are not many of them. The only other one I can
> think of right now would be w3, and development of that appears pretty
> much stagnant.
I fully agree with David that we should not make such changes to the
behaviour of the display property that would break _the_ major package
actually using it for anything non-trivial.
Instead we can explicitly put an inivisible property together with the
display property on a priece of "hidden" text which should be ignored
by searches. That need a little work to check all uses of display
properties, but it doesn't break any old code relying on the current
behaviour.
I don't know whether it actually works to put both invisible and
display on some text (with the effect of showing the image and
ignoring the under-laying text). Would someone make some examples
to check it?
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), (continued)
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/25
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Luc Teirlinck, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/24
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Juri Linkov, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/25
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/22
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), David Kastrup, 2005/03/22
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?),
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), David Kastrup, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Kim F. Storm, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Kim F. Storm, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), David Kastrup, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/25
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Juri Linkov, 2005/03/23
RE: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Drew Adams, 2005/03/21