Re: follow-link not on mouse-face

[Richard M. Stallman]

        I think part of the reason may have been to help show the boundary
        between the line number and the line contents.  That is why I suggest
        that each of these parts of the line could highlight separately.

    I may be mistaken, but my recollection was that people argued that:

     - Highlighting the whole line was too garish and interfered with
       readability. Juri mentions flicker too, which is perhaps related.

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.  I am talking about
mouse-face highlighting.  Is mouse-face highlighting of the whole line
what people considered "garish"?

     - People accidentally followed links by clicking mouse-1, trying to set
    point.

Are you saying that the purpose of not doing mouse-highlighting on the
line number was so that Mouse-1 on the line number would not visit that
occurrence?

If so, this has been changed since.  Mouse-1 on the line number DOES
visit that occurrence, and that's part of the background of the current
complaint.

Anyway, I am not sure it makes sense to say that you wanted to "set point".
Because clicking with Mouse-1 on the occur buffer DOES set point.
Then it visits the occurrence in the other window.

    I argued for highlighting the whole line (for ease of use with the mouse and
    to help visual alignment, as in using a ruler with a phone book), but doing
    so with only (mouseover) underlining, to avoid the problem of heavy-handed
    highlighting (flicker and TOO MUCH NOISE).

I am not sure what change you are arguing for.  Is the change just a
matter of which face is used for the mouse-face highlighting?
To use `underline' instead of `highlight'?

        I see.  However, we don't want mouse-1 to be active on the whole line,
        for other reasons.

Does anyone remember what those reasons were?  I don't.