On 12 Apr 2002, Stephen J. Turnbull mused:
preview-latex implementers: David Kastrup
<David.Kastrup(a)t-online.de>
Nix <nix(a)esperi.demon.co.uk>
I'm not sure, but ISTR that David and Nix have some complaints about
extent handling for preview-latex mode.
We have moans, but we've worked around the lion's share of the problems
caused by Michael's problem #1.
Two consecutive previews will still misbehave, but we can't fix that
until the begin- and/or end-glyph of a visible extent is *always*
visible regardless of the presence of the end of another extent.
Consecutive previews are hard to get, anyway; you'd need something like
\section{Stuff}$x=y+c$
to get them, which is horribly ugly LaTeX in any case :)
So it's not crucial, but it would be nice to have glyphs at the edges of
extents treated as their extent specifies rather than as another random
one specifies.
I might try to cook up a patch against 21.5 to fix this, but first I
have to handle tha embarrassing fact that the latest version of my
multi-height-glyphs patch breaks top_clips. (They were broken already
but it breaks them worse. Fixing.)
Of course it's up to you, but if you want to take the lead on
this it
would be a valuable contribution.
Please fix it :) redisplay's not *that* hard, honestly, in the same way
as a nest of snakes isn't *that* wriggly... ;}
Don't hesitate to push for what you think is right even if it
differs
from current behavior (or even current docs), or seems like it might
be hard to implement. What's important at this stage of ambiguity is
to get a sane, coherent spec for the semantics.
`start- and end-glyphs should obey their own extent's visibility spec,
not that of another extent that happens to have endpoints there'. (What
to do if an invisible extent *overlaps* another with glyphs, I'm not so
sure: probably use the extent-priority to decide whether to display the
glyph or not.)
--
`Unless they've moved it since I last checked, travelling between
England and America does not involve crossing the equator.'
--- pir