Re: moving point over invisible and intangible text

[Stefan Monnier]

> Alternatively and maybe better, we could, in light of Stefan's
> changes, undo the invisible-intangible subtlety mentioned in the NEWS

I would agree.

> (that would, in the worst case, make point appear to stand still for
> one single C-f instead of for an unlimited number of C-n's), mention

I'm not aware of this C-f problem.  Could you describe a scenario?

> Stefan's changes in the Elisp manual (needs to be done anyway) and

Obviously.

> warn there not to give the same text the invisibility and
> intangibility property.  (I personally would _not_ go as far as to
> actually "deprecate" intangible altogether, just intangible-invisible.)

I don't intend to deprecate `intangible'.  Only to point out that it
is a feature that tends to break a lot of code because it does more than
what one might expect at first.

I'd actually be interested to hear of cases (other than invisible text,
obviously) where something like `intangible' is necessary, beause I feel
like the current implementation is problematic.
The only case I know of is for minibuffer prompts.


        Stefan