From unknown Thu Jun 19 13:55:04 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#15899 <15899@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#15899 <15899@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Reply-To: bug#15899 <15899@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:55:04 +0000 retitle 15899 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than = default reassign 15899 emacs submitter 15899 Drew Adams severity 15899 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Nov 14 17:57:53 2013 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Nov 2013 22:57:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52781 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vh5rE-0000fP-Rx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:53 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49857) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vh5rD-0000fA-7i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:52 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vh5qx-0003Yg-UY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:45 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:58930) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vh5qx-0003Yc-R2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:35 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51546) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vh5qp-0007eu-7e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vh5qg-0003VY-HY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:27 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:18225) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vh5qg-0003VN-9b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:18 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAEMvGHU018755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:57:17 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAEMvFPk022718 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:57:16 GMT Received: from abhmp0018.oracle.com (abhmp0018.oracle.com [141.146.116.24]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAEMvFXw012123 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:57:15 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:57:14 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) In Emacs 24.3, if you highlight some text with an overlay, without specifying any priority for the overlay, that overlay will be lower priority than the `region' face overlay that is used to select text for the region. In this build, the region overlay is of lower priority, so the other overlay hides the region overlay. To test, create an overlay without specifying any priority. E.g. evaluate this in buffer *scratch* from emacs -Q. (text-mode) ; No font lock interference. (setq overlay (make-overlay 20 40)) (overlay-put overlay 'face 'highlight) Then select text in the first line, from before char 20 to after char 40. The highlighting from 20 to 40 shows, instead of the region. Do the same thing in Emacs 24.3 - no bug there. Dunno when the regression started. In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of 2013-11-12 on LEG570 Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --enable-checking 'CFLAGS=3D-O0 -g3' CPPFLAGS=3D-DGLYPH_DEBUG= =3D1' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 02:41:50 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 07:41:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53854 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhE2H-0006Jb-QS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 02:41:50 -0500 Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:57823) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhE2E-0006JM-2g for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 02:41:46 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWA00E00NSI1B00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:41:39 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWA00EXOO1F0D30@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:41:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:41:24 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:57:14 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > > In Emacs 24.3, if you highlight some text with an overlay, without > specifying any priority for the overlay, that overlay will be lower > priority than the `region' face overlay that is used to select text for > the region. > > In this build, the region overlay is of lower priority, so the other > overlay hides the region overlay. In Emacs 24.3, the region highlight was not done by an overlay, but by special code in C. Now it is an overlay, so the issue of priority creeps in. > Do the same thing in Emacs 24.3 - no bug there. Dunno when the > regression started. It started when Stefan made the region use an overlay. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 09:03:43 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 14:03:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54197 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhJzq-0003NU-RG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:03:43 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:56002) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhJzp-0003NH-DI for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:03:41 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABK/CFFsr+pX/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IPAS-Result: Av8EABK/CFFsr+pX/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="37977390" Received: from 108-175-234-87.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([108.175.234.87]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 15 Nov 2013 09:03:35 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E40DD606D5; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:54:15 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Message-ID: References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:54:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:41:24 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > In Emacs 24.3, the region highlight was not done by an overlay, but by > special code in C. Now it is an overlay, so the issue of priority > creeps in. Indeed. OTOH, I'm not convinced it's a bug, since this "bug" was also the fix for another bug. It's a change, there's no doubt about that. Whether it's better or worse is not so clear. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 09:41:10 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 14:41:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54238 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhKa6-0004LP-8L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:41:10 -0500 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:64573) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhKa3-0004L9-RE for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:41:08 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWB0020077V5Q00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:41:02 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWB002I17GD1KB0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:41:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:40:47 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Stefan Monnier Message-id: <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Drew Adams , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:54:15 -0500 > > I'm not convinced it's a bug, since this "bug" was also the fix for > another bug. Was that other bug also about priorities of faces? > It's a change, there's no doubt about that. Whether it's better or > worse is not so clear. Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous when an overlay is in its middle? What are the downsides of setting the region overlay's priority to most-positive-fixnum? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 10:32:27 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 15:32:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56095 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhLNh-00060v-Mp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:32:26 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175]:61525) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhLNc-00060b-2N for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:32:21 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z16so1062545ead.20 for <15899@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:32:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=a+FvuabffiUMAg1FgQ3cwoVmzg/Vm1TznhYxhDLR9W8=; b=sfBySSjV9XOHt9tt4uW9Ek7uK9TELIjMznZiA4HJOkoCR1LGf09YrmO+81APBW6Pco Fp4YSUM9OqtViclxKt0xKvDU3xhoXBEsSYaBRzCB5gC3QyPdrgPv0lF/8etf+mArbAbO vrSHoQuv2IUz2WP9yha0SW1rPvnY/u8P3g9tVmdUrDy8WA0IuuLdMkWcF8mF1yVImPmY DqkfTlqaQNAPJpmJxnAdVIIxzjbxrP2S9KIcUDEnI5+qXG0sqIQ0DeCkLwuBcVjf2UXA dIWhq1RsMXWMvL0llXIlxJlgnXU+IuKl2CU0wXd74Uv/yfBKcQETr24OPR7kG4KjkOjW BLug== X-Received: by 10.14.95.69 with SMTP id o45mr513886eef.107.1384529533913; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from axl (93-245-142.netrun.cytanet.com.cy. [93.109.245.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v45sm7381299eef.11.2013.11.15.07.32.11 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:32:13 -0800 (PST) From: Dmitry Gutov To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:32:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:40:47 +0200") Message-ID: <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> Cc: Drew Adams , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:54:15 -0500 >> >> I'm not convinced it's a bug, since this "bug" was also the fix for >> another bug. > > Was that other bug also about priorities of faces? Yes. http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15618 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 10:51:52 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 15:51:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56100 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhLgV-0006U5-Gj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:51:51 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:21293) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhLgS-0006Tp-CJ for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:51:48 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAFFpfKx024428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:51:42 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFFpdpm000092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:51:40 GMT Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFFpdFN025447; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:51:39 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1519bff5-bf9d-42bc-8993-d96153f0004f@default> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:51:38 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > In Emacs 24.3, the region highlight was not done by an overlay, > > but by special code in C. Now it is an overlay, so the issue > > of priority creeps in. >=20 > Indeed. OTOH, I'm not convinced it's a bug, since this "bug" was > also the fix for another bug. Which other bug? Was that bug there ever since the Emacs region could be highlighted (i.e., several decades old)? Or was that bug introduced recently, as the result of some other change? Maybe there is more than one change that needs to be reverted? Oh, I see that Dmitry has now answered that question:=20 http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D15618 Which was NOT a bug, IMO. It should not have been "fixed". The fact that face `region' highlights "on top of" other highlighting is _on purpose_, i.e., by design. Countering that is folly, IMO. What next? Someone wants to see "theme" highlighting on top of Isearch overlays? And someone eagerly jumps in to "fix" that "bug" too? > It's a change, there's no doubt about that. Whether it's better > or worse is not so clear. Are you saying that you think it might not be a bug (regression) to use an overlay rather than a text property? That would be a reasonable question. Or are you suggesting that it might not be a bug that selecting text does not show the selection face throughout the selection? The latter would be unreasonable. When you select text you should always be able to see which text you selected - all of it, even if it is only one character. This should be a no-brainer. The whole point of having a `region' face is to highlight what is in the region. (FWIW, I'm not sure I'm in favor of the change to using an overlay from using a text property either, but that is not what this bug report is about. Using the region to select text, and then replacing face `region' text property with another face or another text property, or otherwise making use of the property, can be useful. Sure, you can make do without `region' as a text property, but why should you have to? Why did this behavior suddenly need to be changed, after four decades or so of use?) Please: 1. If you keep the use of an overlay, at *least* give users a choice (e.g. a user option) of whether face `region' is to be applied as a text property or used for an overlay. 2. When it is used for an overlay, please make its priority higher than others, with the exception of isearch overlays (yes, there can sometimes be a use for continuing to show the region while isearching). If there are any other exceptions needed to bring the behavior back to pre-regression, those would apply also. (I can't think of any other exceptions, right now). These kinds of changes should first be the subject of proposal and discussion in emacs-devel, and perhaps a user poll. They should not be made willy nilly when fixing a bug. IMHO. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 10:55:43 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 15:55:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56104 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhLkD-0006aC-Bz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:55:42 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:21825) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhLk8-0006Zq-CK for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:55:36 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAFFtTnL030820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:55:30 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFFtS4P013133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:55:29 GMT Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFFtSo3013119; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:55:28 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <00aa91d2-10a2-4a78-bb95-042d1596a41c@default> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:55:27 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <<20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default>> <<83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org>> <> <<83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous > when an overlay is in its middle? Yes. And when a `face' or other display-related text property is in its middle. Or is at either end. Or extends across the whole region (which includes when the region is in the middle of a stretch of highlighting). I know from experience with the new (and old) behavior. Such situations are visually confusing to users. And they can complicate operating on text properties and, more generally, using text properties and overlays. This change should be reverted as soon as possible. It is a candidate for "What WERE they thinking?" At the very least, make such behavior optional for users (and certainly not the default). There are thousands of real bugs reported, many of them still unresponded to. There is no reason to spend time "fixing" non-bugs such as this. This should have gotten only a polite "This is by design", perhaps followed by an explanation of why the design (in Emacs and everywhere else!) is thus. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 11:41:38 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 16:41:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56135 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhMSf-0007jZ-Ep for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:41:37 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:52191) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhMSd-0007jI-5w for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:41:35 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWB00900CI54200@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:41:29 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWB0091XD0M5220@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:41:11 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:40:57 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Dmitry Gutov Message-id: <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > From: Dmitry Gutov > Cc: Stefan Monnier , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:32:07 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Stefan Monnier > >> Cc: Drew Adams , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > >> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:54:15 -0500 > >> > >> I'm not convinced it's a bug, since this "bug" was also the fix for > >> another bug. > > > > Was that other bug also about priorities of faces? > > Yes. http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15618 But since the region is now an overlay, the inconsistency will be gone, right? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 11:44:18 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 16:44:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56139 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhMVD-0007np-Bs for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:44:16 -0500 Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:55861) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhMV8-0007na-R6 for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:44:12 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWB00G00CQZ5T00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:44:04 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWB00FTCD5GXIA0@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:44:04 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:43:50 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: <00aa91d2-10a2-4a78-bb95-042d1596a41c@default> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <8338mxipix.fsf@gnu.org> References: <00aa91d2-10a2-4a78-bb95-042d1596a41c@default> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:55:27 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous > > when an overlay is in its middle? > > Yes. And when a `face' or other display-related text property is > in its middle. Or is at either end. Or extends across the whole > region (which includes when the region is in the middle of a > stretch of highlighting). I know from experience with the new > (and old) behavior. > > Such situations are visually confusing to users. And they can > complicate operating on text properties and, more generally, > using text properties and overlays. > > This change should be reverted as soon as possible. It needs not be reverted, I think. We just need to make the priority of the region overlay higher than any other overlay. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 11:53:13 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 16:53:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56144 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhMds-0000fH-DZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:53:12 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:39229) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhMdq-0000f4-I0 for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:53:10 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wn1so4148469obc.0 for <15899@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:53:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6rY9jis3OZ2BDDZO2dd2OPyuP6vE57GKKo4wA58XhTQ=; b=gV1XIU7NmVHKWfirFPguK6HXm6pWmhpvHNjOIWCa91ZGqTl1iuPVDdABF24UhM+BDb X0VJ/w0YaftF7anSlVeYCLBxwWcuqeOXaqiquxT09dHlkPJU/8pJID9ymAWkQlGn2oQi lo53U1zkhgk6GTXuVTawIi5w9jJfDNaqYnA3vCoRB2ewuFduQUZ2KfGY/8bywv7KDBri kjjWW8JGG6v3tn8OENDOmgeG90l6vbupSi4QwxJ2oavg1rUl1pIkpW9uuj1kyhNyzV3m gCj4EEYPrKj9D6lKuU4BkBT3ybJ4DCpqguZ5e0FawLYSB6lGwFjLD+czg9pWDLJWHV0P p2mg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.58.166 with SMTP id s6mr7884886oeq.40.1384534384563; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.156.103 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:53:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:53:04 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default From: Barry OReilly To: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0139faa82bda4304eb3a084e X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) --089e0139faa82bda4304eb3a084e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree having the region overlay at lowered priority is undesirable. I think most other overlays are longer lived, and during the shorter periods I use the region, it's the one I'm most interested in seeing. > Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous > when an overlay is in its middle? Actually, it's worse when the other overlay is at either end of the active region, because then I can't tell for sure where the region began or ended unless I happen to remember. --089e0139faa82bda4304eb3a084e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree having the region overlay at lowered priority is u= ndesirable.
I think most other overlays are longer lived, and during the= shorter
periods I use the region, it's the one I'm most interes= ted in seeing.

> Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contigu= ous
> when an overlay is in its middle?

Actually, it's wor= se when the other overlay is at either end of the
active region, because= then I can't tell for sure where the region
began or ended unless I happen to remember.

--089e0139faa82bda4304eb3a084e-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 12:14:51 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 17:14:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56163 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhMyo-0001Ds-J8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:14:50 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:34477) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhMyl-0001Dd-RY for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:14:48 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAFHEeI4000975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:14:41 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFHEdqJ002566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:14:39 GMT Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFHEc65002547; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:14:38 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <78b8713a-e96f-4b4d-990a-3af59ebdf942@default> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:14:37 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <<00aa91d2-10a2-4a78-bb95-042d1596a41c@default>> <<8338mxipix.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<8338mxipix.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > This change should be reverted as soon as possible. >=20 > It needs not be reverted, I think. We just need to make the > priority of the region overlay higher than any other overlay. 1. I meant that the change to the behavior of the region not appearing "on top of" other highlighting (except isearch) needs to be reverted (undone). IOW, bug #15899 is a regression. It is the behavior that needs to be fixed, regardless of how that is done. 2. Region highlighting should *not* be higher priority than all other overlays. It should not be higher than isearch highlighting, for instance. There might be other exceptions too; dunno. See my previous mail. 3. It's not clear that the reported "bug" was in fact a bug, rather than the intended Emacs behavior. Or if it was, it is not clear just what the bug was. If it was thought to be a bug that other highlighting was in some cases overruled by region highlighting, then that was not, IMO, a bug. 4. If it was in fact a bug, it's not clear why the fix for it needed to involve changing region highlighting to use an overlay. Not clear to me anyway. My suggestion is to first revert the code change and then discuss what the bug is that it was intended to fix. If there is really a bug that needs fixing, then let's please try to find some other, non-shotgun fix for it. There should be no need to change the longstanding behavior of the Emacs region just because someone's highlighting does not show through. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 14:33:48 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 19:33:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56231 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhP9I-0004cA-6V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:33:48 -0500 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:65429) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhP9E-0004br-Hw for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:33:46 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWB00A00KONJE00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:33:37 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWB00AUGL00BF90@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:33:37 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:33:23 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: <78b8713a-e96f-4b4d-990a-3af59ebdf942@default> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83zjp5h33w.fsf@gnu.org> References: <78b8713a-e96f-4b4d-990a-3af59ebdf942@default> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:14:37 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > This change should be reverted as soon as possible. > > > > It needs not be reverted, I think. We just need to make the > > priority of the region overlay higher than any other overlay. > > 1. I meant that the change to the behavior of the region not > appearing "on top of" other highlighting (except isearch) needs > to be reverted (undone). You cannot revert behavior, only the code. If the new implementation has unwanted side effects, those side effects need to be fixed by further changes. > 2. Region highlighting should *not* be higher priority than > all other overlays. It should not be higher than isearch > highlighting, for instance. There might be other exceptions > too; dunno. See my previous mail. I don't disagree. If there are other overlays that should show through the region, they should have higher priority. > 4. If it was in fact a bug, it's not clear why the fix for it > needed to involve changing region highlighting to use an > overlay. Not clear to me anyway. It doesn't have to be clear. The fact that region highlighting now uses an overlay is an implementation detail. Bug reports should generally remain on the level of behavior, i.e. requirements, they should not normally go to the implementation level. The implementors should have freedom to implement the required behavior as they see fit, as long as the results are reasonable. > My suggestion is to first revert the code change and then > discuss what the bug is that it was intended to fix. If > there is really a bug that needs fixing, then let's please > try to find some other, non-shotgun fix for it. Again, please stay on the level of required behavior, and leave the implementation out of this discussion. As long as there's no evidence that the new implementation cannot possibly accommodate the required behavior, the implementation can stay. > There should be no need to change the longstanding behavior > of the Emacs region just because someone's highlighting does > not show through. Agreed. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 16:21:33 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 21:21:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56257 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhQpX-0007Bd-SM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:21:32 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:42951) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhQpV-0007BL-4r for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:21:30 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAFLLLPC014743 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:21:22 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFLLKmA016143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:21:21 GMT Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFLLKMt016120; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:21:20 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <5cfb2403-7f6c-4f6a-8c67-46b91eed47fb@default> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:21:19 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <<78b8713a-e96f-4b4d-990a-3af59ebdf942@default>> <<83zjp5h33w.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83zjp5h33w.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > 1. I meant that the change to the behavior of the region not > > appearing "on top of" other highlighting (except isearch) > > needs to be reverted (undone). >=20 > You cannot revert behavior, only the code. I added "(undone)", to be clear. And no, code is not the only thing that can be reverted. When you revert a buffer using `g', you are reverting behavior/effects, not reverting code. Revert just means to go back to a previous state. > If the new implementation has unwanted side effects, those side > effects need to be fixed by further changes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No, that is not the need. The need is to remove the unwanted side effects - sure. But that does not imply keeping the culprit code and then trying to make "further changes" to make things right. That is only one possible approach. It is not _necessary_ to follow that approach -there is no such "need". Another approach is to (1) revert the code changes that brought about the regression and then (2) fix the bug those changes were intended to fix in some other way. That is, assuming there really was a bug to be fixed. Can you say what it was? If so, can you also say why keeping the changes made so far and applying (unknown) "further changes" is the best way to go? > > 4. If it was in fact a bug, it's not clear why the fix for it > > needed to involve changing region highlighting to use an > > overlay. Not clear to me anyway. >=20 > It doesn't have to be clear. I assume you mean that it does not have to be clear to me. Hopefully you agree that it has to be clear to someone. Is it clear to you? If so, do tell, pray. > The fact that region highlighting now uses an overlay is an > implementation detail. No, it is not. Why? Because Emacs _users_ do things with buffer text, and with text properties, and with overlays. These are not simply implementation artifacts. They are first class Emacs thingies that can be and are manipulated by Emacs users. Some users might not care whether some particular highlighting is via a text property or an overlay. Other users might care. Depends on what they are doing. Users interact with Emacs in lots of ways besides interactive use of `emacs -Q' commands and menus. They add text properties, examine them, change them, search their text, change their text,... This is a passably big change for Emacs Users. Emacs has used text property `face' to "implement" region highlighting ever since such highlighting has existed. Why no proposal for such a change? No discussion? > Bug reports should generally remain on the level of behavior, > i.e. requirements, they should not normally go to the > implementation level. What is the _behavioral requirement_ that obliges the use of an overlay for the region? Can you answer that? I've seen nothing so far. Talk about text properties vs overlays is on the user level, as well as the developer level. It is mistaken to think that it is something hidden to users inside some "implementation level". > The implementors should have freedom to implement the > required behavior as they see fit, as long as the results are > reasonable. Sure they should. But just what is the required behavior here? And how relative is that "freedom"? And what is the community of "implementors" that should enjoy this freedom? "The implementors" are not a separate breed from Emacs users. We are in this together. ("The educator himself must be educated." - Theses on Feuerbach) > > My suggestion is to first revert the code change and then > > discuss what the bug is that it was intended to fix. If > > there is really a bug that needs fixing, then let's please > > try to find some other, non-shotgun fix for it. >=20 > Again, please stay on the level of required behavior, and > leave the implementation out of this discussion. Something wrong with discussing implementation among "implementors"? Among users too? Not at all. > As long as there's no evidence that the new implementation ^^^^^^^^^^^ > cannot possibly accommodate the required behavior, the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > implementation can stay. Setting the bar a bit high, aren't you? Balderdash. As long as there is no evidence that the _old_ implementation "cannot possibly accommodate" other changes that fix the bug, the old implementation can stay. You are being simplistic here. The new implementation is not the One Tried & True that cannot be questioned. It is not arguments against the new implementation that need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That's backwards. What should be demonstrated is why we should choose a new region implementation. This change has not even been released yet - why on Earth put up a wall of "as long as there is no evidence that it cannot possibly accommodate"? As if it were enshrined in unquestionable tradition. It's bad enough to defend a longstanding and proven status quo dogmatically. It's downright ridiculous to do so for a change that is only a few days old and has not yet seen the Light of User Day. Is there even any "evidence" that there was a bug to be fixed? Again, can you say what the bug is, clearly and not referring to implementation? IOW: This is the _requirement_, in terms of behavior: _____ And this is why it is better to fix the remaining problems caused by the recent "fix" than it is to start over with a different fix: _______ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 17:35:38 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2013 22:35:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56320 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhRzG-0000al-1W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:35:38 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com ([74.125.83.53]:50024) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhRzD-0000aX-Ft for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:35:36 -0500 Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id b57so1331663eek.12 for <15899@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:35:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iASDyHhziZXkStib6lQQzW7S3tE+cwrwBwqmEqY0JNI=; b=WvOdyiEUQBY7slI7pDBa2pKqwvszVXlhJ/DHEcwnNlwlB24niuqXacGcCa9pkAbi+p wmPBmoT4cHHKhFbKh30HKmbFi3MO6oRxHL0fqhllgYvuBRWnkN7LO48d187Nxh+s6k/Y qD9ohXCeng17/YD1IwNfgG02qjgORFZURdFinDh8wj++xKhfpM/Giy6cu3c0cyqj5N6J VXECpaVEPyTtn3GmM2EnpJd9E0N70KCliyKQoMDMql1Y4UAJXsKx075gZkBAWjNbQJQQ lNX0uCG8d4Mi7pnafM/WjFqot2Mtk3b1lsTl9SJODDMJ1FjPpcbvuIJxjwbZ9NCOva1N 3rsg== X-Received: by 10.14.5.12 with SMTP id 12mr5486891eek.9.1384554929727; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.10.2] (62-113-224.netrun.cytanet.com.cy. [62.228.113.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a6sm10508499eei.10.2013.11.15.14.35.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:35:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 00:35:25 +0200 From: Dmitry Gutov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On 15.11.2013 18:40, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> I'm not convinced it's a bug, since this "bug" was also the fix for >>>> another bug. >>> >>> Was that other bug also about priorities of faces? >> >> Yes. http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15618 > > But since the region is now an overlay, the inconsistency will be > gone, right? Yes, but if the region overlay will have priority infinity, the inconsistency will "be gone" in the opposite way from how 15618 was resolved. Which will make the related feature of `easy-kill' much harder (maybe impossible) to implement. If the region overlay will have a high but finite and documented priority, that would be much better. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 20:25:55 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 01:25:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56393 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhUe2-0004j7-IS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:25:54 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:56270) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhUdz-0004iq-Vc for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:25:52 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABK/CFFsoXRM/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IPAS-Result: Av8EABK/CFFsoXRM/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="38031943" Received: from 108-161-116-76.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([108.161.116.76]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 15 Nov 2013 20:25:46 -0500 Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 26518AE21D; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:25:46 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Message-ID: References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:25:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:40:47 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous when > an overlay is in its middle? 1- you need more than "an overlay in its middle": you need this overlay to put a face property that happens to completely cancel the region's own face properties (since the `face' properties of overlapping overlays are merged). 2- I don't think it's particularly confusing, no. Usually the context makes it pretty clear, and if the user is surprised at some point, that surprise will most likely not last very long. So, no, I don't really think it's a bug. > What are the downsides of setting the region overlay's priority to > most-positive-fixnum? I most-positive-fixnum-ly hate overlay priorities. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 20:26:42 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 01:26:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56397 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhUeo-0004kd-57 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:26:42 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:56529) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhUen-0004kP-Eo for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:26:41 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABK/CFFsoXRM/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IPAS-Result: Av8EABK/CFFsoXRM/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIHgbBLZEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="38031984" Received: from 108-161-116-76.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([108.161.116.76]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 15 Nov 2013 20:26:35 -0500 Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id BD429AE21D; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:26:35 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Message-ID: References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <1519bff5-bf9d-42bc-8993-d96153f0004f@default> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:26:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1519bff5-bf9d-42bc-8993-d96153f0004f@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:51:38 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > is _on purpose_, i.e., by design. No, it was the result of the implementation technique, no of design. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 15 22:47:51 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 03:47:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56460 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhWrO-0008Jv-OX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:47:51 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:51194) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhWrM-0008Jf-Dm for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:47:49 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAG3ldrH027478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:47:40 GMT Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAG3lcDf001773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:47:38 GMT Received: from abhmp0008.oracle.com (abhmp0008.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAG3lcrq001768; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:47:38 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:47:37 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Stefan Monnier Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <1519bff5-bf9d-42bc-8993-d96153f0004f@default> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > The fact that face `region' highlights "on top of" other > > highlighting is _on purpose_, i.e., by design. >=20 > No, it was the result of the implementation technique, no > of design. You "accidentally" cut off that first line, where I said _what_ was by design. I've put it back, to restore the message honestly. How do you know that Emacs Dev did not _intend_ for the region display to appear "on top of" other highlighting (with the exception of isearch)? I don't believe for a second that this was by accident or just a result of an "implementation technique". Not until you can show some supporting evidence for that claim. Without contrary evidence, I am persuaded that Emacs, like every other app that uses selection, chose this behavior for its _user-level_ effect: The point is to show users just what is selected. There is no better reason to make such a choice. =20 Result of an "implementation technique", indeed! And there were already lots of other UIs that showed selection highlighting, before Emacs added its own. Just as for menus, tooltips, mouse-face highlighting, links, text attributes, and much of the rest of the Emacs UI, these things were developed first outside Emacs and only later (sometimes much later) emulated by and added to Emacs. Emacs got its selection highlighting design from others, not as a result of some Emacs "implementation technique". Users everywhere expect a selection highlight to show them clearly what they've selected. That, and not some unspoken "implementation technique", is the reason that Emacs Dev showed the region face clearly throughout the region selected. Up until this regression, that is. If what is now the behavior remains, then Emacs will be the only UI I'm aware of that does not have selection highlighting override other highlighting in appearance - the only one where _you cannot know what you've selected_ based on highlighting. Can you name another UI that does that? This is really, really silly. Usability out the window - poof. Users will have no idea what they are selecting. Except in lucky cases. And even then they will have to remain unsure, because there is no way to tell whether what they are seeing highlighted as selected is really everything that is selected or just some of it. > Usually the context makes it pretty clear, "Usually" there is no other highlighting of the same text. So what? This usual case is not what the bug is about. > and if the user is surprised at some point, that surprise > will most likely not last very long Wrong. They will need to remain unsure - there is no way to know whether something unhighlighted with face `region' is in fact selected. And even if you were right that user confusion would "most likely not last very long" (based on what?), there is _no reason_ that users have to be confused about selection coverage at all. This-won't-hurt-long is no consolation, because there is no need to inflict pain in the first place. No reason not to show them the region highlighted normally. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 03:49:55 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 08:49:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56619 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhbZi-0007Yz-EV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:49:54 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:39775) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhbZe-0007Yk-RN for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:49:52 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWC00F00LSYKA00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:49:44 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWC00FQJLUWDP60@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:49:44 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:49:32 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Dmitry Gutov Message-id: <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 00:35:25 +0200 > From: Dmitry Gutov > CC: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > > On 15.11.2013 18:40, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>>> I'm not convinced it's a bug, since this "bug" was also the fix for > >>>> another bug. > >>> > >>> Was that other bug also about priorities of faces? > >> > >> Yes. http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15618 > > > > But since the region is now an overlay, the inconsistency will be > > gone, right? > > Yes, but if the region overlay will have priority infinity, the > inconsistency will "be gone" in the opposite way from how 15618 was > resolved. But the behavior will still be consistent. And complaint about inconsistency is how I read that bug report. It even asks "which is the right behavior?", implying that having it consistent either way would be OK. > Which will make the related feature of `easy-kill' much harder (maybe > impossible) to implement. Can you tell more about this feature, and why it cares to be "more equal" than the region? (Sorry, I don't have time to read the source or try it.) Why is it important for easy-kill overlay to make region highlighting invisible? > If the region overlay will have a high but finite and documented > priority, that would be much better. Which will start an "overlay priority arms race", something I loathe. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 04:07:03 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 09:07:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56639 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhbqI-000809-15 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 04:07:02 -0500 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:32904) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhbqF-0007zn-Hm for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 04:07:00 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWC00300MLBWS00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:06:53 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWC003MFMNGW320@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:06:53 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:06:41 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Stefan Monnier Message-id: <83txfchg0u.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:25:46 -0500 > > > Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous when > > an overlay is in its middle? > > 1- you need more than "an overlay in its middle": you need this overlay > to put a face property that happens to completely cancel the region's > own face properties (since the `face' properties of overlapping > overlays are merged). It's enough for that face to specify a background color, no? That's not uncommon for Emacs features. E.g., try "M-x hl-line-mode RET". > 2- I don't think it's particularly confusing, no. Usually the context > makes it pretty clear, and if the user is surprised at some point, > that surprise will most likely not last very long. Well, a few people just disagreed with you. > > What are the downsides of setting the region overlay's priority to > > most-positive-fixnum? > > I most-positive-fixnum-ly hate overlay priorities. No offense, but I think we can live with that downside ;-) Are there any others? In any case, the moment you reimplemented the region as an overlay, you got us this issue, because it is inherent in the use of overlays, and cannot be escaped. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 04:52:05 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 09:52:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56680 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhcXs-0000jM-LP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 04:52:04 -0500 Received: from smtpo11.poczta.onet.pl ([213.180.142.142]:57464) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhcXo-0000il-PW for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 04:52:02 -0500 Received: from [192.168.17.9] (cj.e-siemianowice.pl [95.215.234.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTPSA id 3dMBXp4Mxgz9ttRq for <15899@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:51:53 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=poczta.onet.pl; s=2011; t=1384595514; bh=EseEKInYaYD/csL4DoJRhEJal9wpbGTNU5tAv9+5cLw=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IY7nQvbFwUnMweZZR+IVk5oCjHwSwaUVuqoSWO1jDC8uemozjRQTIFoBxRHfzEtIJ rVf4QCDtJnu4/16TQsjzh2JKVZuNDiJoIUA7nc71RSQ2dMUMCJVXj+6UDpzGK5I+Ui Cg9uL1F2puGctiFyBZPDP0IZATxv3sOKlHQRQtew= Message-ID: <5287403B.2060302@poczta.onet.pl> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:51:55 +0100 From: Jarek Czekalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: W dniu 2013-11-16 09:49, Eli Zaretskii pisze: >> If the region overlay will have a high but finite and documented >> priority, that would be much better. > Which will start an "overlay priority arms race", something I loathe. [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [213.180.142.142 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: W dniu 2013-11-16 09:49, Eli Zaretskii pisze: >> If the region overlay will have a high but finite and documented >> priority, that would be much better. > Which will start an "overlay priority arms race", something I loathe. [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [213.180.142.142 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid W dniu 2013-11-16 09:49, Eli Zaretskii pisze: >> If the region overlay will have a high but finite and documented >> priority, that would be much better. > Which will start an "overlay priority arms race", something I loathe. From this point of view editors like Notepad are best. No races, no possibility of user or package interfering with application author's vision. But we are in Emacs. This should mean freedom to users. If a user wants to have a higher priority, why would you forbid him to do so? I can't imagine an example where infinite priority is better than a high value. Could you help with that? I guess examples of malicious users or those who don't read docs should not count. Jarek From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 05:25:50 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 10:25:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56722 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhd4X-0001ZX-IR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:25:50 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f180.google.com ([209.85.215.180]:57574) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhd4T-0001ZJ-U0 for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:25:46 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id b11so1732938eae.25 for <15899@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:25:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ayvDPeeMnJmdY9IkTuoBIJlhM0Y0AYNDSLEnmc1sveE=; b=n6h5S+juwShzpwv/ufsbJEzaTlsT5QMjtPYRHMTgMcdAiEcwEv1KCdIl51UAf66WeZ S50UgO8gAHvT1ws3Uy2tAH6ZyGhlr+JVhC5lqUtFjjO6PiZh2o4Dxbn+eKaLLoeM5eoM //ZpyRhbwYnt5y8GsnZOdekjfVS8EAPBoHwXA+Lqtz9Xh0iBxoDkdgx8jPUC0kUfz77y H4I2urKxkJx1S1U6U9RsVL4zymZt/PXAx8x1DTlOo7VQHp/ywLIDjkCuF1X2KsRxYVtx fuwcG7DFQo/sOrGIIm66sFOO/1KZdBNgAq464WSHyvHZIOHoH+/HCAASXdJxhEw1Pc3I 8Kug== X-Received: by 10.14.172.133 with SMTP id t5mr7061787eel.35.1384597539964; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:25:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.10.2] (62-113-224.netrun.cytanet.com.cy. [62.228.113.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l9sm15362028eew.6.2013.11.16.02.25.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:25:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52874820.2020601@yandex.ru> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:25:36 +0200 From: Dmitry Gutov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On 16.11.2013 10:49, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Yes, but if the region overlay will have priority infinity, the >> inconsistency will "be gone" in the opposite way from how 15618 was >> resolved. > > But the behavior will still be consistent. And complaint about > inconsistency is how I read that bug report. It even asks "which is > the right behavior?", implying that having it consistent either way > would be OK. The bug report was what is was, but `easy-kill' depends on region highlighting working in a certain way. >> Which will make the related feature of `easy-kill' much harder (maybe >> impossible) to implement. > > Can you tell more about this feature, and why it cares to be "more > equal" than the region? (Sorry, I don't have time to read the source > or try it.) Why is it important for easy-kill overlay to make region > highlighting invisible? It has a command `easy-mark' which selects some unit of text around point. And it uses a dedicated overlay to mark the place where point was before the command was called, in color. So that overlay needs to have higher priority than region. No need to make region highlighting invisible. >> If the region overlay will have a high but finite and documented >> priority, that would be much better. > > Which will start an "overlay priority arms race", something I loathe. I don't think so. The region overlay priority won't change, even if people decide to shoot themselves in the foot and raise priorities of overlays inappropriately. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 05:42:33 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 10:42:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56738 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhdKj-00020o-5v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:42:33 -0500 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:36735) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhdKg-00020W-FZ for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:42:31 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWC00400QTI4E00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:42:24 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWC0042OR2N4D10@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:42:24 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:42:12 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: <5287403B.2060302@poczta.onet.pl> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Jarek Czekalski Message-id: <83ppq0hbln.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <5287403B.2060302@poczta.onet.pl> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:51:55 +0100 > From: Jarek Czekalski > > W dniu 2013-11-16 09:49, Eli Zaretskii pisze: > >> If the region overlay will have a high but finite and documented > >> priority, that would be much better. > > Which will start an "overlay priority arms race", something I loathe. > > From this point of view editors like Notepad are best. No races, no > possibility of user or package interfering with application author's > vision. But we are in Emacs. This should mean freedom to users. If a > user wants to have a higher priority, why would you forbid him to do so? Every freedom must have its limits. "Your freedom to swing fists ends where my nose begins." (Yes, I know I'm lecturing, but so did you.) More to the point: Previously, Emacs users did not have the freedom to overrule the region highlighting with an overlay face. Many generations of Emacs users lived with that limitation and never complained about that, at least not seriously enough to make this an issue. Keeping the priority of the region overlay at infinity just preserves previous behavior. So I think we should turn the table and ask why would a user need to have this freedom now, and only give that freedom if the cause justifies it. > I can't imagine an example where infinite priority is better than a high > value. Could you help with that? It avoids the problem of priority race. With an infinite priority, we can be sure the region highlighting will always be visible, come what may. > I guess examples of malicious users or those who don't read docs > should not count. No, but unintended consequences of actions by unsuspecting users should. In a complex system, unintended consequences are always a greater danger than malicious intent. IOW, keeping the region priority above everything makes sure we won't have another series of bug reports in the near future asking why this or that feature makes region invisible. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 06:24:46 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 11:24:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56767 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhdzZ-00036W-Gn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 06:24:46 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:34248) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhdzW-00036D-JO for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 06:24:43 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWC00G00SYONG00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:24:36 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWC00GOOT0ZEX70@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:24:36 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:24:24 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: <52874820.2020601@yandex.ru> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Dmitry Gutov Message-id: <83ob5kh9nb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <52874820.2020601@yandex.ru> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:25:36 +0200 > From: Dmitry Gutov > CC: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > > `easy-kill' depends on region highlighting working in a certain way. What way is that? Before region highlighting was reimplemented as an overlay, it had a fixed "priority" that couldn't be controlled or worked around. So what exactly did easy-kill expect from that behavior? > It has a command `easy-mark' which selects some unit of text around > point. And it uses a dedicated overlay to mark the place where point was > before the command was called, in color. But the region always has point on one of its ends, so both the places where point was and where it is are clearly visible when the region is active. So why is there a need for the easy-mark to be visible in that situation (which is transient and therefore short-lived)? > So that overlay needs to have higher priority than region. No need to > make region highlighting invisible. The part of the region that overlaps the easy-mark overlay will not be visible, if the region's priority is lower. Or did you mean something else? > >> If the region overlay will have a high but finite and documented > >> priority, that would be much better. > > > > Which will start an "overlay priority arms race", something I loathe. > > I don't think so. The region overlay priority won't change, even if > people decide to shoot themselves in the foot and raise priorities of > overlays inappropriately. That's not the race I had in mind. What I had in mind was users complaining about their favorite overlay-based features being obscured by the region, lobbying the maintainers to increase the priorities of those overlays above the region (and possibly also above the easy-mark overlay), or increase the priority of the region overlay; then other users complaining about the effects of that, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. How can you even assume that the "region overlay priority won't change", given the possibility and enough pressure from users? Once out of the bottle, this genie cannot be easily put back. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 08:49:25 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 13:49:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56836 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhgFY-0007zh-FE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:49:25 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f179.google.com ([209.85.215.179]:61130) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhgFU-0007zR-H0 for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:49:21 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f179.google.com with SMTP id r15so1512234ead.24 for <15899@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:49:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NyC3AKOqSPcw6YFzmw/PqjaG9sQxHQyMkyT6+5tLxiE=; b=kVBx82XhpHh9ttUUqkG5eqtqRAZJDlX0mi5bDZWhRWZBIMa9Tlzc4puWGdwb+ypUiy BAjfPGC74QynH8fhgftJh5c1kpatVu8xZ1M1fqiX084YeSEOFx7JuBn1RpuWp95J9eqf d5fcVrNPI8kQhNZ4DnK/xSCByJxfaZUaOuRHwOm7pqS1OqGTfF1SNlfgAy7+CMlQ7w9z gacXJhDeSbITnNMvzgaXkuLJ/Gj8F8Akb/vTD60kKGcMyxLtb5bW+o7Tt5/G2uRNInI8 GGPvQQSIgpeu/3/k98OvftalOyjP87j6w+rh+XAQOVrfrFmLgEys5UPhYbT3jDqY0Pkk IClw== X-Received: by 10.14.175.3 with SMTP id y3mr311765eel.59.1384609754554; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:49:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.10.2] (62-113-224.netrun.cytanet.com.cy. [62.228.113.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s3sm16982744eeo.3.2013.11.16.05.49.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:49:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <528777D7.1060306@yandex.ru> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:49:11 +0200 From: Dmitry Gutov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <52874820.2020601@yandex.ru> <83ob5kh9nb.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83ob5kh9nb.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On 16.11.2013 13:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > What way is that? Before region highlighting was reimplemented as an > overlay, it had a fixed "priority" that couldn't be controlled or > worked around. So what exactly did easy-kill expect from that > behavior? That behavior was broken on Leo Liu's system (don't know how) and on mine too (with some themes only). See https://github.com/leoliu/easy-kill/issues/3 for more details. > But the region always has point on one of its ends, so both the places > where point was and where it is are clearly visible when the region is > active. In many times point wasn't at any of region ends. That's how `easy-mark' works, it selects some unit of text *around* the point. > So why is there a need for the easy-mark to be visible in > that situation (which is transient and therefore short-lived)? Just for user information. Looks kinda nice. > The part of the region that overlaps the easy-mark overlay will not be > visible, if the region's priority is lower. That just means that easy-mark will need to set its priority higher than the *documented* region priority. > That's not the race I had in mind. What I had in mind was users > complaining about their favorite overlay-based features being obscured > by the region, lobbying the maintainers to increase the priorities of > those overlays above the region (and possibly also above the easy-mark > overlay), or increase the priority of the region overlay; then other > users complaining about the effects of that, and so on and so forth ad > nauseam. This will have to be solved on a package-by-package basis, like every contentious feature. One user complaint: change the priority of a package-specific overlay. More complaints to change it in different directions: add a user option that will set the priority that overlay. > How can you even assume that the "region overlay priority > won't change", given the possibility and enough pressure from users? > Once out of the bottle, this genie cannot be easily put back. Region priority will have to be set once (to 100, or something), documented, and then never changed again. Any changes will have to be made to other overlays' priorities. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 09:43:51 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 14:43:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56847 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhh6F-0000r0-5F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:43:51 -0500 Received: from smtpo13.poczta.onet.pl ([213.180.142.144]:32951) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhh6A-0000qj-UG for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:43:48 -0500 Received: from [192.168.17.9] (cj.e-siemianowice.pl [95.215.234.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTPSA id 3dMK1S3zLFzYxlGX for <15899@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:43:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=poczta.onet.pl; s=2011; t=1384613020; bh=71fmAjI2SvhZ7Gp5i2y24AiRbhR9Fzk2aJoGVb/us6k=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=g7aXxYe/0gEm1m0IuSWOjwwLZExcw9B67KAHr+rQh6jKjCQDmdMi58YR/gBIzg5R+ 21p3MVuv5B46guVU2tyYyRtFnVCNVwcsqqZsdDRwQJT4F1+C+/EzTMI6REWiX/pu4n vc1kCsE/QOv/IlFB/b2PNel0EyccyWmCT/qStbIw= Message-ID: <5287849C.4020507@poczta.onet.pl> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:43:40 +0100 From: Jarek Czekalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <5287403B.2060302@poczta.onet.pl> <83ppq0hbln.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83ppq0hbln.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) W dniu 2013-11-16 11:42, Eli Zaretskii pisze: > Every freedom must have its limits. "Your freedom to swing fists ends > where my nose begins." (Yes, I know I'm lecturing, but so did you.) Sorry if you didn't like my tone. I tried to make a general point and justify it well. On the other hand, I don't mind lecturing like yours, if that's what we call lecturing here. > So I think we should turn the table and ask why would a user need to > have this freedom now, and only give that freedom if the cause > justifies it. Good point. I would do it just for the sake of flexibility, which Emacs should be proud of. We may not predict in what way people will want to user overlays. And some of them may be silently disappointed if flexibility of overlays is not sufficient. They even won't complain about it, so we may never hear such a request. But if flexibility is achieved, there may be silent happy users. That's a benefit. Introducing a new feature needs considering pros and cons. Personally I don't see enough cons. Dmitri's answer presents ways to deal with potential problems. Good documentation would be the most important weapon. Something like: "It is strongly suggested not to specify a priority higher than ..., because it will cause problems with displaying selection boundaries." An example of such need just came to my mind. A temporary overlay which highlights for a second the words spoken by a user through a microphone. So if I were to decide, I would say: freedom and flexibility! Sorry again for lecturing. And being pathetic too :) Jarek From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 11:20:42 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 16:20:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57340 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhibx-0003MW-Pc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:20:42 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:18234) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhibu-0003MD-Dv for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:20:39 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAGGKVLj010511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:20:32 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGGKVww010748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:20:31 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGGKUom010741; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:20:30 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <76fdea95-c6a8-4721-b006-7bdaeedd98a1@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:20:29 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Dmitry Gutov , Eli Zaretskii Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <52874820.2020601@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <52874820.2020601@yandex.ru> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > It has a command `easy-mark' which selects some unit of text around > point. And it uses a dedicated overlay to mark the place where point > was before the command was called, in color. >=20 > So that overlay needs to have higher priority than region. No need > to make region highlighting invisible. Similarly, the isearch overlays should have higher priority than any region overlay. (And yes, I agree with you that users should of course be able to change priorities as they see fit.) If region highlighting is to use an overlay, then its default priority should be higher than most predefined (i.e., emacs -Q) overlays, but lower than the isearch priorities. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 11:23:47 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 16:23:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57345 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhiew-0003RP-Ja for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:23:47 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:19048) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhiet-0003R5-Oz for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:23:44 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAGGNbuU017014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:23:38 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGGNahZ010967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:23:37 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGGNaFg009091; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:23:36 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <7031ba1e-2f47-4dd0-908a-938c26016e12@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:23:35 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , Jarek Czekalski Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <<20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org>> < <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org>> <<87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru>> <<83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <5287403B.2060302@poczta.onet.pl>> <<83ppq0hbln.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83ppq0hbln.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > Previously, Emacs users did not have the freedom to > overrule the region highlighting with an overlay face. Many > generations of Emacs users lived with that limitation and never > complained about that, at least not seriously enough to make this an > issue. Keeping the priority of the region overlay at infinity just > preserves previous behavior. No, it does not preserve previous behavior. 1. Previously, isearch highlighting took priority over region highlighting. Isearch highlighting has a large, finite value. 2. Previously, region highlighting used the `face' text property. 3rd-party code and user code and interactions that manipulate text properties will no longer work. Yes, using an overlay for the region brings other possibilities. But it takes away certain possibilities, as well (#2). > > I can't imagine an example where infinite priority is better than > > a high value. Could you help with that? >=20 > It avoids the problem of priority race. If you declare a winner ahead of time then there is no race. Big deal. Isearch needs (by default, at least) to win out over region. And why not others as well, depending on need? Why foreclose the possibility? Sure, if someone wants to fiddle with priorites then there is always the potential for escalation spiraling round. That's life with Lisp. > With an infinite priority, we can be sure the region highlighting > will always be visible, come what may. Which might not always be what someone wants. I'm all for region appearing on top, by default, as I've already argued in detail. Users need to know what they've selected. But that does not mean that someone should be prevented from doing things otherwise. > IOW, keeping the region priority above everything makes sure we > won't have another series of bug reports in the near future asking > why this or that feature makes region invisible. That's just an argument for the default behavior. "_Keeping_ the priority above everything else" is wrong. _Setting_ it above everything else (with exceptions such as isearch) by default is right. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 11:24:59 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 16:24:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57350 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhig5-0003TI-5m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:24:58 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:18721) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhig2-0003T5-VX for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:24:55 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAGGOm0Q012849 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:24:49 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGGOlKJ013104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:24:48 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGGOlAn010920; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:24:47 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <84d6f022-f243-4198-8c69-4162646d91f9@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:24:47 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , Dmitry Gutov Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <<20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org>> < <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org>> <<87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru>> <<83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <52874820.2020601@yandex.ru>> <<83ob5kh9nb.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83ob5kh9nb.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > I don't think so. The region overlay priority won't change, even > > if people decide to shoot themselves in the foot and raise > > priorities of overlays inappropriately. >=20 > That's not the race I had in mind. What I had in mind was users > complaining about their favorite overlay-based features being > obscured by the region, lobbying the maintainers to increase the > priorities of those overlays above the region (and possibly also > above the easy-mark overlay), or increase the priority of the region > overlay; then other users complaining about the effects of that, > and so on and so forth ad nauseam. How can you even assume that > the "region overlay priority won't change", given the possibility > and enough pressure from users? User complaint escalation is the escalation you fear? That's a new one. Emacs Dev has never had much trouble resisting user complaints to change defaults. And foreclosing such debate is never the solution anyway. Just set the default priority for the region overlay to a value close to but lower than the isearch overlays. If there are future suggestions to tweak default priorities then that will be discussed concretely when it comes up. If users - or you - have good reasons to change default priorities, then those can be adjusted. > Once out of the bottle, this genie cannot be easily put back. Once face `region' is used for an overlay and not a text property, the overlay genie is out of the bottle, yes. New possibilities arrive, and some old possibilities leave. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 11:30:44 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 16:30:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57354 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhilc-0003d8-Ld for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:30:42 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:19355) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhila-0003cp-16 for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:30:38 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAGGUUMe016114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:30:32 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGGUTfm023964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:30:30 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGGUTJa021727; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:30:29 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <83bc9079-2dee-4922-8cdf-f261c1fefc72@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:30:29 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Dmitry Gutov , Eli Zaretskii Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <5286A1AD.1080106@yandex.ru> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <52874820.2020601@yandex.ru> <83ob5kh9nb.fsf@gnu.org> <528777D7.1060306@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <528777D7.1060306@yandex.ru> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > ... users complaining about the effects of that, and so on and > > so forth ad nauseam. >=20 > This will have to be solved on a package-by-package basis, like > every contentious feature. One user complaint: change the priority > of a package-specific overlay. More complaints to change it in > different directions: add a user option that will set the priority > that overlay. Yes. > > How can you even assume that the "region overlay priority > > won't change", given the possibility and enough pressure from > > users? Once out of the bottle, this genie cannot be easily put back. >=20 > Region priority will have to be set once (to 100, or something), > documented, and then never changed again. Any changes will have to > be made to other overlays' priorities. Yes. But users will also be able to change the priority of the region overlay. You are both right: The overlay genie is a genie, and it will definitely be out of the bottle (Eli). It is only the default region overlay that needs to be defined (well). Users changing that or other priorities can do good and or harm. Emacs Dev need not change the default priority of the region (or any other) overlay, unless it thinks that is appropriate (Dmitry). Think isearch overlay priorities. Have they ever changed? Has there been a deluge of user whining that they need to be changed? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 11:53:02 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 16:53:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57373 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhj7G-0004CQ-2k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:53:02 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:59868) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhj7C-0004By-SJ for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:53:00 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWD00I007KKWL00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:52:52 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWD00IIV883QM90@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:52:51 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:52:40 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default In-reply-to: <7031ba1e-2f47-4dd0-908a-938c26016e12@default> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83k3g8gug7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <"<20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557"@default> <" <"<87mwl58yvc.fsf"@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <"<83wqk8hgtf.fsf"@gnu.org> <7031ba1e-2f47-4dd0-908a-938c26016e12@default> X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:23:35 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org > > 2. Previously, region highlighting used the `face' text property. No, region never used any text properties. There was a 'region' face, yes, but no text property. Instead, the display engine had special code for displaying the active region in the 'region' face. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 12:45:23 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 17:45:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57389 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhjvu-0005XM-V5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:45:23 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:25727) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhjvs-0005X8-HA for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:45:20 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABK/CFHO+J5Y/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSQuh3AGwS2RCgOIYZwZgV6DFQ X-IPAS-Result: Av8EABK/CFHO+J5Y/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSQuh3AGwS2RCgOIYZwZgV6DFQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="38068695" Received: from 206-248-158-88.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([206.248.158.88]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 16 Nov 2013 12:45:14 -0500 Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 7E26BAE1D0; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:45:14 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Message-ID: References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <83txfchg0u.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:45:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <83txfchg0u.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:06:41 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) >> > Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous when >> > an overlay is in its middle? >> 1- you need more than "an overlay in its middle": you need this overlay >> to put a face property that happens to completely cancel the region's >> own face properties (since the `face' properties of overlapping >> overlays are merged). > It's enough for that face to specify a background color, no? In some cases, yes, because the region's foreground color is often unnoticeable (e.g. same as default). >> I most-positive-fixnum-ly hate overlay priorities. > No offense, but I think we can live with that downside ;-) The downside is not that I hate it, but the reasons why I hate it: it's as much a source of problems as a solution. `priorities' impose a total ordering, where often there isn't one: in some circumstance one overlay should be on top, in others it's the other way around. The "default priority" at least is able to handle those things sometimes, by making overlays's ordering depending on nesting. > In any case, the moment you reimplemented the region as an overlay, > you got us this issue, because it is inherent in the use of overlays, > and cannot be escaped. It was present before as well. The behavior was different but was also a source of "priority problems". My intuition tells me that if Emacs had use the current system for the last 20 years and had just changed to the "region is always at the very top", people would complain just as much. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 12:47:40 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 17:47:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57394 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhjy7-0005b2-L8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:47:40 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:27787) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhjy5-0005ag-FL for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:47:38 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAGHlUhC027120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:47:31 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGHlT5w018090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:47:29 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGHlSwV018075; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:47:28 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <733ba4de-f206-458a-8c9e-0eab2fc07944@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:47:27 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <<"<20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557"@default>> <<"> <<"<87mwl58yvc.fsf"@yandex.ru>> <<834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org>> <<"<83wqk8hgtf.fsf"@gnu.org>> <<7031ba1e-2f47-4dd0-908a-938c26016e12@default>> <<83k3g8gug7.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83k3g8gug7.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > 2. Previously, region highlighting used the `face' text property. >=20 > No, region never used any text properties. There was a 'region' > face, yes, but no text property. Instead, the display engine had > special code for displaying the active region in the 'region' face. You are right about that, Eli. I was quite mistaken about it. Funny (embarrassing), I could have sworn that I had seen face `region' listed as a text property in `C-u C-x =3D', but I must not have. And yes, I should have double-checked that. Thank you for the correction. And that changes what I said about moving `region' to an overlay taking some text-property behavior away from Lisp users. With that information, I now see no downside (so far) to moving face `region' to an overlay. We just need to get the overlay (by default) to appear to be on top of most other overlays (with isearch as an exception). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 13:01:30 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 18:01:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57405 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhkBV-0005wg-ST for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:01:30 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:29740) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhkBT-0005wR-HH for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:01:28 -0500 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAGI1K30010706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:01:21 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGI1JOY026790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:01:20 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGI1JDY026783; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:01:19 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <67d3dd9d-9abe-488f-80eb-7d647bd81e7e@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:01:19 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <83txfchg0u.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > It's enough for that face to specify a background color, no? >=20 > In some cases, yes, because the region's foreground color is > often unnoticeable (e.g. same as default). That's only by default. We should not base too many assumptions on any particular face attributes for face `region'. It is user customizable. Better to plan for it to be like any other face: any attributes at all, at least as much as we can. > >> I most-positive-fixnum-ly hate overlay priorities. > > No offense, but I think we can live with that downside ;-) >=20 > The downside is not that I hate it, but the reasons why I hate > it: it's as much a source of problems as a solution. > `priorities' impose a total ordering, where often there isn't > one: in some circumstance one overlay should be on top, in > others it's the other way around. I don't disagree (and I'm glad that you are giving reasons ;-)). But what is a better approach? A total ordering is black & white, but at least it gives people a degree of control. And at least that control is simple: a total ordering is a simple model. How about giving an example of a problem? And a solution - something that solves that problem and gives users more (not less) control. > The "default priority" at least is able to handle those things > sometimes, by making overlays's ordering depending on nesting. Not sure what that means, and I wish I did understand what you mean by that. Can you give a tiny example to illustrate? > > In any case, the moment you reimplemented the region as an > > overlay, you got us this issue, because it is inherent in > > the use of overlays, and cannot be escaped. >=20 > It was present before as well. The behavior was different > but was also a source of "priority problems". Not clear how so. Can you elaborate? Are you referring to the fact that a user who wants to see some other highlighting (besides isearch) "on top" could not do so? That I can see. If you mean something else then I don't know what it is. > My intuition tells me that if Emacs had use the current system > for the last 20 years and had just changed to the "region is > always at the very top", people would complain just as much. People sometimes complain less when (a) the new behavior is proposed and explained and (b) they have an opportunity to question and discuss it. We are certainly doing that here, now, but this is something that would be more appropriate for emacs-devel, IMO. It would have been better to initiate a discussion and proposal there, pointing to the bug report and outlining what the behavior changes would be. But you've heard this before... From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 17:00:12 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 22:00:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57550 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhnuV-0004dB-Hh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:00:12 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:14282) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhnuR-0004d0-Fl for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:00:08 -0500 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from ceviche.home ([173.179.11.28]) by VL-VM-MR003.ip.videotron.ca (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 64bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MWD00CMHMG65850@VL-VM-MR003.ip.videotron.ca> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:00:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id AA7AB660A5; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:00:17 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Message-id: References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <83txfchg0u.fsf@gnu.org> <67d3dd9d-9abe-488f-80eb-7d647bd81e7e@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:00:17 -0500 In-reply-to: <67d3dd9d-9abe-488f-80eb-7d647bd81e7e@default> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) >> The "default priority" at least is able to handle those things >> sometimes, by making overlays's ordering depending on nesting. > Not sure what that means, and I wish I did understand what you > mean by that. Can you give a tiny example to illustrate? The default ordering between two overlays that have the same priority is that if one of the two overlays is nested in the other it should have higher priority. The idea is to try and avoid having one overlay completely hide another. > Not clear how so. Can you elaborate? Are you referring to > the fact that a user who wants to see some other highlighting > (besides isearch) "on top" could not do so? Exactly. > We are certainly doing that here, now, but this is something > that would be more appropriate for emacs-devel, IMO. It would > have been better to initiate a discussion and proposal there, > pointing to the bug report and outlining what the behavior > changes would be. But you've heard this before... No, the change's purpose was not to fix that bug. It was just a side-effect. The main purpose of the change was to move the region highlighting code out of the redisplay to Elisp. The good news is that if you liked to old behavior you can get it now by writing some Elisp code, whereas in the past you had no such choice. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 17:01:21 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 22:01:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57554 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhnvc-0004fv-TU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:01:21 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:25189) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vhnvb-0004fl-Ex for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:01:19 -0500 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from ceviche.home ([173.179.11.28]) by VL-VM-MR003.ip.videotron.ca (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 64bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MWD00CULMI25850@VL-VM-MR003.ip.videotron.ca> for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id C00FD660A5; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:01:25 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Message-id: References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <7031ba1e-2f47-4dd0-908a-938c26016e12@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:01:25 -0500 In-reply-to: <7031ba1e-2f47-4dd0-908a-938c26016e12@default> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, Jarek Czekalski X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) > 2. Previously, region highlighting used the `face' text property. > 3rd-party code and user code and interactions that manipulate text > properties will no longer work. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Stfean From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 16 17:42:24 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2013 22:42:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57572 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhoZL-0005hw-P5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:42:23 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:19517) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VhoZJ-0005hg-Ga for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:42:22 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAGMgELj010592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:42:15 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGMgCAP015332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:42:13 GMT Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAGMgCMp023922; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:42:12 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <7a0d561d-ca75-4167-b323-ec8637203195@default> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 14:42:11 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Stefan Monnier Subject: RE: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <87mwl58yvc.fsf@yandex.ru> <834n7dipnq.fsf@gnu.org> <83wqk8hgtf.fsf@gnu.org> <7031ba1e-2f47-4dd0-908a-938c26016e12@default> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, Jarek Czekalski X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > 2. Previously, region highlighting used the `face' text property. > > 3rd-party code and user code and interactions that manipulate text > > properties will no longer work. >=20 > Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Feel better now, Stefan? I already said several hours ago, after Eli pointed it out, that I was mistaken in thinking that face `region' was applied as a text property. I was (mistakenly) convinced that I had seen it listed in `C-u C-x =3D' output as such. Mea culpa (again). At least I know enough to guess that selection highlighting should, at the very least by default, visibly cover the entire selection. That's a no-brainer, in my book. But then, I don't know what I'm talking about. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 17 07:26:08 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Nov 2013 12:26:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58212 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi1QV-0000zx-GE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:26:08 -0500 Received: from dancol.org ([96.126.100.184]:39138) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi1QR-0000zL-Rp for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:26:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=wFZ8BGyBqqJCd9AndZzpRQMUngFF67W+xt0O/vBDbQc=; b=UIsxnVAiR/wLWICb4mzZfLE9LjOU13r6VxHCN7GYmoWs7tBWSglyVHR6kExdUKpu7acBJCmQcxyZGbWmk4L5FyW0WRUMoEDBqVN5CWo4IecEAm5v7m+QubwWWBJMO29F/adsDpi+JJXkIp7B7OkL80tMu5AEtpqvbzdIGnb3+qihGwp7Xsak2MZqWPf4bbNwr1V8MjOKapyMhYB6vDKK4Eh8D9Z7MxZO/MdhHjaWBwxt/B3Bg27RZvR4iztz7q6cUrwI54dwEWR5EQgAo2jOzpLqIR5+XR5hylnfDXWhp26Wmj4rxgYEv0tA6Q748MfQcA2R843n/YLaiGxIJBjmzA==; Received: from c-76-22-66-162.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([76.22.66.162] helo=[192.168.1.100]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi1QJ-0007CZ-Kd; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:25:55 -0800 Message-ID: <5288B5D1.2000301@dancol.org> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:25:53 -0800 From: Daniel Colascione User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <83txfchg0u.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) On 11/16/2013 09:45 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >>>> Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous when >>>> an overlay is in its middle? >>> 1- you need more than "an overlay in its middle": you need this overlay >>> to put a face property that happens to completely cancel the region's >>> own face properties (since the `face' properties of overlapping >>> overlays are merged). >> It's enough for that face to specify a background color, no? > > In some cases, yes, because the region's foreground color is > often unnoticeable (e.g. same as default). > >>> I most-positive-fixnum-ly hate overlay priorities. >> No offense, but I think we can live with that downside ;-) > > The downside is not that I hate it, but the reasons why I hate it: it's > as much a source of problems as a solution. `priorities' impose a total > ordering, where often there isn't one: in some circumstance one overlay > should be on top, in others it's the other way around. Can you provide an example of an actual case where two overlays should be ordered one way in one context and another in a different context? Nothing comes to mind at the moment. I don't think numeric priorities are as big a social problem as you suspect: in other cases where we use priorities to manage interaction of unrelated modifiers on some base behavior (e.g., NT filter driver altitudes), priorities work well enough and don't lead to arms races. I'd have preferred an ordered list to numeric priorities, but numeric priorities are good enough. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 17 10:42:34 2013 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Nov 2013 15:42:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58818 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4Ub-0007i0-IX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:42:33 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:61970) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi4UZ-0007hd-13 for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:42:31 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABK/CFHO+J3G/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOIYYl5kiCBXoMV X-IPAS-Result: Av8EABK/CFHO+J3G/2dsb2JhbABEuzWDWRdzgh4BAQQBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOIYYl5kiCBXoMV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="38127696" Received: from 206-248-157-198.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([206.248.157.198]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 17 Nov 2013 10:42:25 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id D134260487; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:42:24 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Daniel Colascione Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default Message-ID: References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> <83txfchg0u.fsf@gnu.org> <5288B5D1.2000301@dancol.org> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:42:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5288B5D1.2000301@dancol.org> (Daniel Colascione's message of "Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:25:53 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > Can you provide an example of an actual case where two overlays should be > ordered one way in one context and another in a different context? Nothing > comes to mind at the moment. No, I admit to not having a concrete case to give you offhand (I do remember that we have bumped into such problems in the past, tho). The issue boils down to the fact that we generally don't want an overlay to hide another. But priorities are not a good way to solve this problem, since the "hiding" depends on the relative position: if an overlay A is nested within another overlay B, then A should be "on top" in order not to be hidden, and if later the relative position of A changes such that B is now nested into A, then B should now be "on top". Sometimes we really do want one overlay to "be on top", including hiding another, and in that case priorities can work OK. > I don't think numeric priorities are as big a social problem as you suspect: Indeed, there's also the general problems of priorities, e.g. where A wants to be on top of B, C wants to be on top of A and B wants to be on top of C. And I agree that in practice these issues aren't all that bad. But overlays have their own additional issues, specific to their nature. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 09 23:16:25 2014 Received: (at 15899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Feb 2014 04:16:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33353 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCiIC-0002xL-SB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 23:16:25 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:49572) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCiIA-0002xE-SI for 15899@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 23:16:23 -0500 Received: from [204.14.154.233] (helo=building.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WCiHw-0005lz-BI; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:16:08 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#15899: 24.3.50; regression: `region' overlay is lower priority than default References: <20137354-f982-4314-9c09-21a5fbc36557@default> <83ob5mi02j.fsf@gnu.org> <83bo1liv80.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:14:55 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:25:46 -0500") Message-ID: <87y51jd2o0.fsf@building.gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1WCiHw-0005lz-BI X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1392610568.89263@Q17zRw3c5dNa9vZZIz3LUg X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 15899 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 15899@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Stefan Monnier writes: >> Isn't it confusing that the region highlighting is non-contiguous when >> an overlay is in its middle? > > 1- you need more than "an overlay in its middle": you need this overlay > to put a face property that happens to completely cancel the region's > own face properties (since the `face' properties of overlapping > overlays are merged). > 2- I don't think it's particularly confusing, no. Usually the context > makes it pretty clear, and if the user is surprised at some point, > that surprise will most likely not last very long. > So, no, I don't really think it's a bug. Closing. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 09 23:16:31 2014 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Feb 2014 04:16:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33356 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCiII-0002xi-Fu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 23:16:31 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:49580) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCiIG-0002xY-EY for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 23:16:28 -0500 Received: from [204.14.154.233] (helo=building.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WCiI2-0005m6-8D for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:16:14 +0100 Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:15:01 -0800 Message-Id: <87wqh3d2nu.fsf@building.gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #15899 X-MailScanner-ID: 1WCiI2-0005m6-8D X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1392610575.16949@Sri6bXDWHysplBD2ZT7KTw X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) close 15899 From unknown Thu Jun 19 13:55:04 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:24:16 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator