[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more problems with line-move
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: more problems with line-move |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:09:59 -0500 |
>> How does stickiness affect it? Perhaps telling people to use stickiness
>> in certain ways is a solution. Or perhaps this code should be changed
>> in regard to how it depends on stickiness.
> If the invisibility is sticky at one end, then this end is basically
> marked as "off-limits".
> Is there a rationale for depending on stickiness in this way?
The rationale is that we try to place point such that inserting a char will
result in a visible new char rather than an invisible one.
That does make sense. It's a good point that a place where a new
character would be invisible should be avoided. However, it doesn't
necessarily follow that a place where a new character would be visible
must be ok to put point in.
So my proposal is to treat the neither-side-sticky case as if the end
were sticky, for these purposes.
Do you see any problem with that?
- Re: more problems with line-move, (continued)
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/07
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/07
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/10
- Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/13
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/14
- Re: more problems with line-move,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: more problems with line-move, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/16
Re: more problems with line-move, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/07