Re: moving point over invisible and intangible text

[Luc Teirlinck]

Miles Bader wrote:

   Note that the C-f behavior is also quite annoying.

But less than the C-n behavior.

   By `undo the invisible-intangible subtlety mentioned in NEWS' do you
   mean to eliminate the force-to-one-end behavior of `intangible', and
   then recommend always using just `invisible'?

Yes.  That would automatically get rid of the C-f behavior, if people
follow that recommendation.  Using both intangible and invisible seems
to contradict the rationale behind Stefan's changes.  If we want to
systematically keep using and supporting invisible-intangible, then it
would actually seem more logical to undo Stefan's changes, which cause
other problems like disabling `line-move-ignore-invisible', that is,
make previously optional behavior mandatory.  I do not understand the
rationale behind _both_ having Stefan's "invisibility implies
intangibility with some minor changes" type behavior and supporting
invisible-intangible.  I understand the rationale behind either one of
these two solutions, but not behind both at the same time.

   I notice that even lines hidden using only `invisible' cause weird C-n
   glitches (it causes C-n to [appear to] move horizontally rather than
   vertically after moving through an invisible line), though not as bad as
   getting stuck completely.

Yes that behavior is not ideal, but, as you say, less bad than the
alternative.

Sincerely,

Luc.