--- "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
It's me FKtPp ;) writes:
> Then I composed the second path, whth BEG and END limited in range
[0,
> (buffer-size)], but, again, I find this even worse:
> XEmacs don't accept 0 as extend/overlay starting point, and
report
> "Argment out of range"
That's right. The buffer indexing scheme is really broken, thanks to
Emacs compatibility. Buffer positions do not point at characters,
they point at insertion points between characters, plus one at each
end. It would make sense to number these 0 ... n, but no, that's not
the way it's done. Instead, they're numbered 1 ... n+1.
> (buffer-size) is 1 character less than (point-max) in a widen
buffer.
> The second copy is totally broken... :'( sorry for no testing
>
> After some rethought I change the range to [1, (1+ (buffer-size))]
, and
> run some code assumed would be failed if using the official XEmacs
> overlay.el.
Is this working now for your needs?
Yes, It prevent me from encounter the "args out of range" error for now
at least.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches