Re: Extent boundaries inconsistent w.r.t. extent properties
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Michael Toomim yowled:
Darryl Okahata wrote:
> What you probably want is the glyph visibility to be dependent upon
> the "openness" of the extent endpoints. If the extent's
"start-open"
> property is non-nil, then the glyph is displayed even if the extent is
> invisible; if "start-open" is nil (the extent is closed), then the glyph
> is not displayed. Similarly for the endpoint.
> Comments?
This won't work for me. My extents all need to be start-open &
end-closed in order to make sure that every keystroke gets inserted
into exactly one extent (my extents run end-to-end across the buffer).
i.e., the property of input-openness and visibility are orthogonal.
But note that there is no *need* to implement anything special here: if
the glyphs are always visible if present, then applications code can
arrange to move the glyphs onto some other (storage) property when
they're supposed to be invisible. (This is what preview-latex does.)
But, equally, having begin-glyph-visible and end-glyph-visible
properties would do no harm.
In my case, it would be better for begin-glyphs and end-glyphs
to just inherit their display properties from the extent they are
attached to.
Yes.
--
`Unless they've moved it since I last checked, travelling between
England and America does not involve crossing the equator.'
--- pir