[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlig
From: |
Jambunathan K |
Subject: |
bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment? |
Date: |
Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:16:56 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>>>> Seems to be working now (haven't tried before my recent changes, tho).
>>>> By now, if you mean 111134, the unhighlighting is not working as
>>>> expected.
>>> Can you give a recipe, because "it works for me",
>> How about a screenshot?
>
> That can work as well, tho since it's not a display problem,
> explanations work at least as well, usually better.
> I never use hi-lock, so don't assume I know how it's expected to
> behave.
This is the behaviour I am expecting. This is what I
circulated in etc/NEWS entry.
*** Unhighlighting command (`hi-lock-unface-buffer') now un-highlights
text at point. When called interactively with C-u, removes all
highlighting in current buffer.
We seem to be talking too much but not taking a moment to understand to
each other. I will exchange no more mails with you in this thread,
sorry. You reply, but with no effort on your part to understand what I
am saying or showing you. I am happy with whatever you conceive to be
useful.
>
>> Recipe-1:
>> Couple of C-x w h, followed by C-x w r. Note the cursor position
>> and the choice offered.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with the cursor position. Please explain.
>
>> See screenshot. Why is there no default offered
>
> Don't know, should there be one?
>
>> and why even absurd candidates are offered?
>
> Which absurd candidates are you talking about?
>
>> Recipe-2:
>> Turn off font-lock-mode.
>> Couple of C-x w h and then try C-x w r, C-u C-x w r, try from menu.
>
> What am I supposed to see when I try that?
>
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
--
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, (continued)
bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Jambunathan K, 2012/12/06
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Jambunathan K, 2012/12/06
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/06
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Drew Adams, 2012/12/06
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Jambunathan K, 2012/12/06
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/06
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Jambunathan K, 2012/12/06
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/06
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?,
Jambunathan K <=
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/07
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Jambunathan K, 2012/12/08
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Jambunathan K, 2012/12/09
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/10
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Jambunathan K, 2012/12/10
- bug#11095: [PATCH] Re: bug#11095: 24.0.94; hi-lock-face-buffer/unhighlight-regexp': Augment?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/10