Re: The unwarranted scrolling assumption

[Lennart Borgman]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Perhaps not, but testing it and saying "it doesn't work" gives you
> much stronger claim on his attention to your patch.

Yes, I just did and sent that here.

>  > No, but I am clearly a bit upset because no one seem to be interested
>  > in the logic. Juanma asked me to explain again more clearly to Eli. I
>  > did. Where is the answer to my more detailed explanation?
>
> I've been working with Eli for about two decades.  He has never
> trusted logic unaccompanied by data.  I happen to like that attitude,
> but even if it doesn't work for you, he's unlikely to change.

Thanks. Yes, Eli and I are then working very differently.

For me if I want (or need) data depends very much on what I know about
the person I am working together with. If we can communicate on the
logic level I prefer that since it is much quicker.

I of course also appreciate that Eli want things tested. It is very
good. It is more about when we should test. (And in some situations
logic have to come first, but not here.)

Anyway I have tried to accommodate to what Eli wants and I hope we can
start communicating again.

>  > I do not care about if my patch goes in. I just care about if the
>  > problem gets fixed. And from David's testing it seems like it is not
>  > fixed.
>
> But David's testing used HELLO, and HELLO triggers bidi, and bidi has
> its own problems IIUC; certainly Eli produced a patch for it.  There's
> some evidence that they are different problems.  So you need to test
> too.

Yes. I tested and I seem to have misunderstood what Eli's patch was
for. Those problems I have mentioned ("jumping scrolling" and the
problems that includes visual-line-mode/word-wrap) are still there.
However David seems to have tested this so I think it is ok.

>  > Why don't you take a look at it? I mean the logic. I think you should
>  > have no difficulties to see how the patch will look.
>
> Because I don't understand the relevant redisplay invariants, and
> don't have time to study them.

OK.