David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> > What exactly is the workaround you recommend?
>>
>> Use :mask ...
>>
>> Then how about changing the default value for :mask?
>
> There is no sensible default. What is useful as a mask depends on the
> image in question. Using heuristic-mask can mean that the whole image
> flashes, but it can also mean that just a single corner pixel blinks.
>
> Even when a mask is specified, using the whole mask as a cursor
> indication is not a good idea, since a large image with a background
> will then flash horribly. The right fix in my opinion would be to use
> the border of the image (extending into the image itself if the border
> is too small, overwriting the image when no mask is given, but maybe
> heeding the mask if it is given). For a block cursor, there should be
> a maximum number of pixels that is affected. If this number is
> exceeded, a box cursor would be used with a thickness that does not
> cause the number of pixels to exceed the threshold, but lets it have
> at least the thickness of a box cursor + 1 pixel.
>
> Something like that. Yes, sounds tiresome.
Indeed. So...
can we please postpone resolving this until after the release.
There is currently a work-around (using :mask) in the FEW (if any)
cases where there is no border around an image that could be used for
the cursor. And the other work-around is to specify a border.
This is not a new bug -- it's been like this since 21.1, and only
recently have we had just one user complaining about it. And he
seems satisfied with the changes I made to use a block cursor
for small images.