GNU bug report logs - #18285
24.3.92; A combination of `display' on text and `invisible' and `before/after-string' leads to the before/after string being displayed twice

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at 18285 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 18285 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18285: 24.3.92;
 A combination of `display' on text and `invisible'
 and	`before/after-string' leads to the before/after string being	displayed
 twice
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 00:01:59 +0400

On 08/22/2014 05:31 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> If that's what people want, it's an easy change.

Can't say for all people, but it seems like a good idea to me.

> But the question is,
> won't that cause overlay strings not to be displayed in some cases?

The reverse, maybe? Making `invisible' inactive means something might 
become visible, right? But I'd have to see some examples.

>> If `display' takes priority over `invisible', I would expect
>>
>> (let ((pt (point)))
>>     (insert (propertize "a" 'display "bbb"))
>>     (let ((o (make-overlay pt (point))))
>>       (overlay-put o 'after-string "foo\nbar")))
>>
>> and
>>
>> (let ((pt (point)))
>>     (insert (propertize "a" 'display "bbb"))
>>     (let ((o (make-overlay pt (point))))
>>       (overlay-put o 'invisible t)
>>       (overlay-put o 'after-string "foo\nbar")))
>>
>> to be rendered the same.
>
> The question is what would you expect from the second example, if it
> used before-string there?  Should the before-string be displayed or
> shouldn't it?  Since invisible makes the beginning of the overlay
> disappear, under your suggestion it won't be displayed.

I think I'm suggesting the reverse, no? And anyway, with the current 
logic, both examples render the `before-string' if I use it there just 
fine. I see no reason for that that to change.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.