From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 03 17:45:07 2015 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2015 21:45:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44181 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9Ok-0005Ac-0M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:45:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59078) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9Oh-00059p-L1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:45:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9Ob-0008N2-7Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:44:58 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:45996) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9Ob-0008My-5T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:44:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60784) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9OZ-000287-Sa for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:44:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9OW-0008Im-M2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:44:55 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:41986) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9OW-0008Ie-FK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:44:52 -0400 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t33LipMk032015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:44:51 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t33LioO9016784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:44:51 GMT Received: from abhmp0013.oracle.com (abhmp0013.oracle.com [141.146.116.19]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t33LioA4022142 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:44:50 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <841dbe06-ed20-4d8d-8bb3-c9245a2a65ed@default> Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 14:44:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same location X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] 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 (----) I add a new overlay with a given `face' value to some text in a buffer. I add another overlay with a different `face' to the same text. The two overlays have the same `priority' value. The appearance presumably follows what rule? There is this description in (elisp) `Overlay Properties', but it covers only the case where different priorities are involved: For the `face' property, the higher priority overlay's value does not completely override the other value; instead, its face attributes override the face attributes of the lower priority `face' property. I do the same thing to the same sequence of chars appearing elsewhere in the same buffer. The appearance is sometimes the same and sometimes different. One of the two faces "wins", it seems, but perhaps with more testing I would find that there is indeed some face merging(?). But in any case, which one wins seems to be arbitrary (random). If I have several such overlays, each with a different face, at the same set of places, different ones seem to "win" here and there, again, seemingly arbitrarily. If I check `overlays-at' and `C-u C-x =3D', the overlays listed at each place are the same, and in the same order. (They were added to the locations in sequence, i.e., overlays with a given face were added to all locations, then overlays with the next face were added to the same locations, etc.) Is there a rule behind this behavior? Can users control which overlay among several with the same priority "wins"? It doesn't seem to be the first or last created, and I haven't found any other rule behind the behavior either. Note that the context is not one where I want to use different priorities. I'm just asking about the case where multiple overlays apply to a given sequence of text, and they have the same priority but different `face' property values. Is this a bug? Or could an enhancement be made, to make the behavior predictable and controllable? In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of 2014-10-20 on LEG570 Bzr revision: 118168 rgm@gnu.org-20141020195941-icp42t8ttcnud09g Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --enable-checking=3Dyes,glyphs CPPFLAGS=3D-DGLYPH_DEBUG=3D1' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 03 18:15:04 2015 Received: (at 20254) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2015 22:15:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44190 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9ri-0005sA-PX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:15:03 -0400 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:1852) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye9rg-0005rf-BR for 20254@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:15:00 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnEFAGvvdVRBbthL/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOfQYIugQiBdQEBBAFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIgTohGMZAkBAgECgz4DCgcIAQKDVASoOw X-IPAS-Result: AnEFAGvvdVRBbthL/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOfQYIugQiBdQEBBAFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIgTohGMZAkBAgECgz4DCgcIAQKDVASoOw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,1,1400040000"; d="scan'208";a="115364905" Received: from 65-110-216-75.cpe.pppoe.ca (HELO pastel.home) ([65.110.216.75]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Apr 2015 18:14:54 -0400 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1BDC819E0; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 18:14:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#20254: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same location Message-ID: References: <841dbe06-ed20-4d8d-8bb3-c9245a2a65ed@default> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:14:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <841dbe06-ed20-4d8d-8bb3-c9245a2a65ed@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 3 Apr 2015 14:44:49 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 20254 Cc: 20254@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 there a rule behind this behavior? If an overlay is nested inside another, then it takes precedence. If neither is nested in the other then the precedence is not documented (IIRC it's arbitrarily taken to be "the one that's closest to point-min", and if start and end at the same position, then the precedence depends on the 100% arbitrary addresses of the overlays in memory). Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 03 18:25:09 2015 Received: (at 20254) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2015 22:25:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44194 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeA1U-000677-OL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:25:09 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:41917) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeA1R-00066X-Gz for 20254@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:25:06 -0400 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t33MOwnc019917 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:24:58 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t33MOvO4022836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:24:57 GMT Received: from abhmp0013.oracle.com (abhmp0013.oracle.com [141.146.116.19]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t33MOvOZ017087; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:24:57 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Stefan Monnier Subject: RE: bug#20254: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same location References: <841dbe06-ed20-4d8d-8bb3-c9245a2a65ed@default> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 20254 Cc: 20254@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 (--) > > Is there a rule behind this behavior? >=20 > If an overlay is nested inside another, then it takes precedence. > If neither is nested in the other then the precedence is not documented > (IIRC it's arbitrarily taken to be "the one that's closest to > point-min", and if start and end at the same position, then the > precedence depends on the 100% arbitrary addresses of the overlays in > memory). In the case I described, the overlays are on exactly the same positions (they coincide), so the last phrase applies, apparently: "100% arbitrary addresses of the overlays in memory". Any chance this implementation could be revisited, to do something regular - predictable and user-manipulable? Or would that be too costly in terms of performance? If it is feasible then please consider this to be such an enhancement request. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 03 21:07:22 2015 Received: (at 20254) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2015 01:07:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44224 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeCYU-0001Vc-F7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:07:22 -0400 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:25316) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeCYR-0001VO-7I for 20254@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:07:20 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnEFAGvvdVRBbthL/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOfQYIugQiBdQEBBAFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIgTohGMZAkBAgECgz4DCgcIAQKDVASoOw X-IPAS-Result: AnEFAGvvdVRBbthL/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOfQYIugQiBdQEBBAFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIgTohGMZAkBAgECgz4DCgcIAQKDVASoOw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,1,1400040000"; d="scan'208";a="115371892" Received: from 65-110-216-75.cpe.pppoe.ca (HELO pastel.home) ([65.110.216.75]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Apr 2015 21:07:14 -0400 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 792D41F7F; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:07:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#20254: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same location Message-ID: References: <841dbe06-ed20-4d8d-8bb3-c9245a2a65ed@default> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:07:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 20254 Cc: 20254@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 (/) > Any chance this implementation could be revisited, to do something > regular Without explicit priority information, we have no data on which to base the ordering. We use the overlays' memory address because it does the job. > - predictable and user-manipulable? That's what the `priority' property is for. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 03 21:55:44 2015 Received: (at 20254) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2015 01:55:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44230 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeDJI-0002ee-Fv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:55:44 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:49493) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeDJF-0002eR-B8 for 20254@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:55:41 -0400 Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t341tZAY027927 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 4 Apr 2015 01:55:35 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t341tYjW013073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 4 Apr 2015 01:55:34 GMT Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t341tYK9022040; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 01:55:34 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 18:55:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Stefan Monnier Subject: RE: bug#20254: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same location References: <841dbe06-ed20-4d8d-8bb3-c9245a2a65ed@default> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 20254 Cc: 20254@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 (--) > > Any chance this implementation could be revisited, to do something > > regular >=20 > Without explicit priority information, we have no data on which to base > the ordering. Order of creation. Newer replaces or dominates older. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 03 22:48:41 2015 Received: (at 20254) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2015 02:48:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44235 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeE8W-0003vC-R8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:48:41 -0400 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:7184) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeE8V-0003uz-Au for 20254@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:48:39 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnEFAGvvdVRBbthL/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOfQYIugQiBdQEBBAFWIxALNBIUGA0kiBOiEYt4IwNGCQMBAoM+AwoHCAECg1QEqDs X-IPAS-Result: AnEFAGvvdVRBbthL/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOfQYIugQiBdQEBBAFWIxALNBIUGA0kiBOiEYt4IwNGCQMBAoM+AwoHCAECg1QEqDs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,1,1400040000"; d="scan'208";a="115375862" Received: from 65-110-216-75.cpe.pppoe.ca (HELO pastel.home) ([65.110.216.75]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Apr 2015 22:48:34 -0400 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 2ADD21F7F; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:48:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#20254: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same location Message-ID: References: <841dbe06-ed20-4d8d-8bb3-c9245a2a65ed@default> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:48:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 3 Apr 2015 18:55:34 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 20254 Cc: 20254@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 (/) >> > Any chance this implementation could be revisited, to do something >> > regular >> Without explicit priority information, we have no data on which to base >> the ordering. > Order of creation. Newer replaces or dominates older. We don't keep track of order of creation. So this would require adding a counter to every overlay (which in turns means increasing the size of overlay and marker objects from 6words to 8words). Doesn't seem worth the trouble, since while it does provide some form of reproducibility, it doesn't give much control. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 03 23:02:17 2015 Received: (at 20254) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2015 03:02:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44239 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeELh-0004Fy-Bx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 23:02:17 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:35044) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeELf-0004Fi-10 for 20254@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 23:02:15 -0400 Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t3432791023229 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:02:08 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t34327nF027338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:02:07 GMT Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t34327Q5030479; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:02:07 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:02:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Stefan Monnier Subject: RE: bug#20254: 25.0.50; `face' overlays with equal priority at the same location References: <841dbe06-ed20-4d8d-8bb3-c9245a2a65ed@default> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 20254 Cc: 20254@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 (--) > >> > Any chance this implementation could be revisited, to do something > >> > regular > >> Without explicit priority information, we have no data on which to bas= e > >> the ordering. > > Order of creation. Newer replaces or dominates older. >=20 > We don't keep track of order of creation. So this would require adding > a counter to every overlay (which in turns means increasing the size of > overlay and marker objects from 6words to 8words). > Doesn't seem worth the trouble, since while it does provide some form of > reproducibility, it doesn't give much control. OK. Thanks for thinking about it, anyway. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 30 14:17:45 2016 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Apr 2016 18:17:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58312 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awZSb-0007yW-5E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:17:45 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:59297) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awZSZ-0007yO-30 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:17:43 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.1.64.getinternet.no ([84.215.1.64] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awZSW-0005Jr-Vm for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:17:42 +0200 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:17:40 +0200 Message-Id: <87y47vdkqj.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #20254 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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 20254 From unknown Sun Jun 15 08:34:04 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 11:24:09 +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