Re: [Q] about set-extent-*-glyph
At 03:44 PM 1/10/00 +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
Didier Verna <didier(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Why do these functions require extents to be associated with a
> buffer ? I can't find any reason for it.
Neither can I. The code looks like it's able to handle placing glyphs
on a detached or string extent without problems.
Isn't the argument string-or-buffer rather than just buffer?
andy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Andy Piper
Senior Consultant Architect, BEA Systems Ltd