From unknown Tue Jun 17 20:25:36 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#40784 <40784@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#40784 <40784@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM images Reply-To: bug#40784 <40784@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 03:25:36 +0000 retitle 40784 Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM imag= es reassign 40784 emacs submitter 40784 Cl=C3=A9ment Pit-Claudel severity 40784 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 22 17:52:30 2020 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2020 21:52:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53495 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRNIE-0001Cc-Jl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:30 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:56950) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRNID-0001CU-0L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53310) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jRNIC-0003Vb-6j for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:28 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jRNIB-0004iQ-22 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:27 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-xf30.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::f30]:47088) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jRNIA-0004g6-IZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:26 -0400 Received: by mail-qv1-xf30.google.com with SMTP id bu9so1780381qvb.13 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:52:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-language; bh=7ROUgRXgg9jmpcgLQ4nr1d4B1Nvr3VcTaC5tA5MbtsY=; b=IldEGhv+OpundCstvTSNWWaf0diXKzPtJMoGNw7k5ojaMFgzN5fBVfOMkV0D8xCTZl NqV7TzSH4yRIdgEK4xGKFFfNccez9FhH8LzTviCnNvGcsCG0ug7wWZTyone+Li4Z6lW8 dPdYbWtNLBINr5TCJ78a6A8DCKUPu0tvlvy2ipDdPnu0eo6xRYJzZSteHdk01nEV/bSK V1knUMyeoD56QQY5dot845lO1OdK16P9u/Q8A4wZVuUVc0wE2rsmM4IYitn/90Y47HHY 3pSqbwysVVvM1Snvaob41Dt6dG1ckKEcRH+WBKM6cqvCTIdLOo5pBqJXrZ3mqdfAIDE6 tPlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language; bh=7ROUgRXgg9jmpcgLQ4nr1d4B1Nvr3VcTaC5tA5MbtsY=; b=igv+HPJ9Gz45iOmDbm1jdFx8jP/5RyZh2i7KFpJvhdjjLjxTen6TkotDGAG34TajrJ CEsEHhADf/oF30cvRVMpLDDgYaalJkxSm5SAulfkYJkze7S9z5bttATrF/z770vd2QVd aGawwI/3jXf0ZAHwHG4GJcgdMgEuM0gc4e4ial+30dqUyPTHIoMZkm1PObObW06kqnit Z7x+sCWoYIMLL93QER3Tt8bJOW7ds4CYg6Nn2DbKsyfXIe44+OW8HNp0+JPDgJlA6ibR jxaVB+9TQECvKyCK85bBkvisVquVUJBvhebivzmZi/GPJqG8Pp9GAVHxCRtWqvvohehA 1uag== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYj/9A8hmKF9o2/vpIXxYF/E6CrbZrRVkgTLTA4Fb0Of1+0ba0j PQdd4Jrfp5lIxVIctfq2PvQHQ6cA X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLrYeyqJQOeGlAVUvEGYBFoRRz5sLPicgIuMXfGrXwF7QsGW2DWi4Yinycy1a6kMnK3SVaT3A== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c506:: with SMTP id x6mr1142041qvi.188.1587592345216; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:184:4180:66e7:40b5:9c78:223e:9420? ([2601:184:4180:66e7:40b5:9c78:223e:9420]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u27sm397526qtc.73.2020.04.22.14.52.24 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:52:24 -0700 (PDT) To: bug-gnu-emacs From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit-Claudel?= Subject: Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM images Message-ID: <15c13a13-efad-aee4-ac0e-f2630dc7ca11@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3654564FDC20C48571386FCF" Content-Language: en-GB Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::f30; envelope-from=cpitclaudel@gmail.com; helo=mail-qv1-xf30.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: [-] PROGRAM ABORT : Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). Location : parse_addr6(), p0f-client.c:67 X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4864:20::f30 X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi all, I was experimenting with XBM images today and it took me a while to realize that the bits in XBM and fringe bitmaps are not in the same order. The attached patch attempts to highlight this. Cheers, Clément. Content analysis details: (2.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: live.com] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [209.51.188.17 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (cpitclaudel[at]gmail.com) 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 2.0 SPOOFED_FREEMAIL No description available. X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit 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: -0.7 (/) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3654564FDC20C48571386FCF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, I was experimenting with XBM images today and it took me a while to realize that the bits in XBM and fringe bitmaps are not in the same order. The attached patch attempts to highlight this. Cheers, Clément. --------------3654564FDC20C48571386FCF Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name="0001-Point-out-the-difference-in-bit-order-between-fringe.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="0001-Point-out-the-difference-in-bit-order-between-fringe.pa"; filename*1="tch" >From e6c55630b1210ce852214e84a81d59c931663506 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Cl=C3=A9ment=20Pit-Claudel?= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:46:07 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Point out the difference in bit order between fringe bitmaps and XBM * doc/lispref/display.texi (Customizing Bitmaps), src/fringe.c (Fdefine_fringe_bitmap): Add a caveat about XBM. --- doc/lispref/display.texi | 3 ++- src/fringe.c | 4 +++- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/lispref/display.texi b/doc/lispref/display.texi index 132a3c8535..5a5091b57b 100644 --- a/doc/lispref/display.texi +++ b/doc/lispref/display.texi @@ -4338,7 +4338,8 @@ Customizing Bitmaps either a string or a vector of integers, where each element (an integer) corresponds to one row of the bitmap. Each bit of an integer corresponds to one pixel of the bitmap, where the low bit corresponds -to the rightmost pixel of the bitmap. +to the rightmost pixel of the bitmap (this is the opposite of XBM +images; @pxref{XBM Images}). The height is normally the length of @var{bits}. However, you can specify a different height with non-@code{nil} @var{height}. The width diff --git a/src/fringe.c b/src/fringe.c index d8d80bb3fe..f33eb83bbf 100644 --- a/src/fringe.c +++ b/src/fringe.c @@ -1498,7 +1498,9 @@ DEFUN ("define-fringe-bitmap", Fdefine_fringe_bitmap, Sdefine_fringe_bitmap, 2, 5, 0, doc: /* Define fringe bitmap BITMAP from BITS of size HEIGHT x WIDTH. BITMAP is a symbol identifying the new fringe bitmap. -BITS is either a string or a vector of integers. +BITS is either a string or a vector of integers. Beware: the lowest +bits of each integer is the rightmost pixel of each line, unlike in +XBM bitmaps. HEIGHT is height of bitmap. If HEIGHT is nil, use length of BITS. WIDTH must be an integer from 1 to 16, or nil which defaults to 8. An error is signaled if WIDTH is outside this range. -- 2.17.1 --------------3654564FDC20C48571386FCF-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 23 10:31:21 2020 Received: (at 40784) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2020 14:31:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55633 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRcsr-0007iz-BS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:31:21 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56934) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRcse-0007iO-1l for 40784@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:31:19 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47631) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jRcsY-0003gi-Ie; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:31:02 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3601 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jRcsX-00019I-6g; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:31:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:30:47 +0300 Message-Id: <831roee0ko.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel In-Reply-To: <15c13a13-efad-aee4-ac0e-f2630dc7ca11@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel on Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:23 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#40784: Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM images References: <15c13a13-efad-aee4-ac0e-f2630dc7ca11@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40784 Cc: 40784@debbugs.gnu.org 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: -1.7 (-) > From: Clément Pit-Claudel > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:23 -0400 > > I was experimenting with XBM images today and it took me a while to realize that the bits in XBM and fringe bitmaps are not in the same order. The attached patch attempts to highlight this. I don't think I understand the concern, and therefore cannot make up my mind about the proposed changes. Can you tell more about your difficulties? Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 23 10:36:03 2020 Received: (at 40784) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2020 14:36:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55646 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRcxP-0007qt-8F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:36:03 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169]:33553) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRcxN-0007qQ-Oa for 40784@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:36:02 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f169.google.com with SMTP id 92so5026074qtg.0 for <40784@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:36:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2/1fvxQ1qgxLq7RlQrizlcwX/53JBCDkwLuj6L3Q2C4=; b=oEJUXp5TBJ7RXVne1Bs9iP6vtRbpjxKljdagzOa1Pd5LIrPz1ZSHOj6f96SsDBjXW7 b4aqOyUNOwbeqsl3BGmhaSHQ1HVYvEXQD8Nej1wmYUqWXp5nVAyoZML2jZrLgtnevVol 29hw0YszKj5ZxbYlFFzEHi2phaDTUgSFyKSyCg2yMhj/UenqqZQquHSkp/hBNucywqML vpPKj+pSXNJWANgCEGdAWzA/PtksC4yMhWijdwbfeUkdYgq97pjEBI3uALWNDasnppFe u7zw7r0D2lJvRZuysTig2cvjlfHMFus2/VG69ARdcSqveWhb1xHA8f9Ejm9DqMV3brho I3gA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2/1fvxQ1qgxLq7RlQrizlcwX/53JBCDkwLuj6L3Q2C4=; b=LEAYm/mygIQOZ91e4jeOz0JNJKuUsTtrUucAYHkXuNdMiito4yABueGXJrseb3ML35 QXKAcGIauZCkjidJVRc+O4BPlUQLqqCRr+Dr4thrwW8ujtnYn0G0jLUYRxIuVYYOUmL5 sPKUB7eAdE87MFKBLwDK0pZE+Yc9pi7cLosPdnLLOpxnsE2U109uVfv3Q0xcwXsFoV7k dtHq2K9iddfn26pXNfkDWrw2UkM+d70nZU77jprtwbSk/ESO65D79P7kSudS7W9hM+6z Xw73RWmEW1UkIw/FubyUC14CFpb1IdJgUaRWKnavBbVzJBkwkA1aDfYU7VbN6GFClA20 JumQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubOiEcTPaR2xgIrMwYpnOLvPHZzVcQE5xyLzJ1QGPtWeiJ+lWnc JW8u9Hb8Hh6m2F4bEvxIfNvL9y8a X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKmAPNz380edMURXbaKltYidIRpsZF7YP3j59z6f3CJj7fu17l3RAtQmjso5jH4Jhj5RGeYqg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1744:: with SMTP id u4mr4171892qtk.141.1587652555822; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:184:4180:66e7:54d6:bfeb:aa49:9d3b? ([2601:184:4180:66e7:54d6:bfeb:aa49:9d3b]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id g187sm1601317qkf.115.2020.04.23.07.35.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#40784: Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM images To: Eli Zaretskii References: <15c13a13-efad-aee4-ac0e-f2630dc7ca11@gmail.com> <831roee0ko.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit-Claudel?= Message-ID: <2e4d8eaf-5e7a-fc71-f515-a2513e47d615@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:35:54 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <831roee0ko.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40784 Cc: 40784@debbugs.gnu.org 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: -1.0 (-) On 23/04/2020 10.30, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Clément Pit-Claudel >> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:23 -0400 >> >> I was experimenting with XBM images today and it took me a while to realize that the bits in XBM and fringe bitmaps are not in the same order. The attached patch attempts to highlight this. > > I don't think I understand the concern, and therefore cannot make up > my mind about the proposed changes. Can you tell more about your > difficulties? Of course: I am currently writing a mode that displays indicators either in the margins or in the fringes, depending on the value of a defcustom. By default, I intended to use the same bitmaps in the margins and in the fringes. It took me a while to understand what I was doing wrong: I was seeing reversed bitmaps, but I hadn't considered the possibility that the two places where Emacs supports monochrome bitmaps would accept the same representation (unibyte strings) but use a different bit order. The proposed patch updates the documentation to save the next person from experiencing the same pain. Clément. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 23 11:14:36 2020 Received: (at 40784) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2020 15:14:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55715 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRdYh-0000Nr-Pr for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:14:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42068) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRdYf-0000Ne-KM for 40784@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:14:33 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49134) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jRdYa-00069b-9Q; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:14:28 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2263 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jRdYZ-000818-6y; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:14:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:14:11 +0300 Message-Id: <83ftcucjzw.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel In-Reply-To: <2e4d8eaf-5e7a-fc71-f515-a2513e47d615@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel on Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:35:54 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#40784: Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM images References: <15c13a13-efad-aee4-ac0e-f2630dc7ca11@gmail.com> <831roee0ko.fsf@gnu.org> <2e4d8eaf-5e7a-fc71-f515-a2513e47d615@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40784 Cc: 40784@debbugs.gnu.org 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: -1.7 (-) > Cc: 40784@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Clément Pit-Claudel > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:35:54 -0400 > > Of course: I am currently writing a mode that displays indicators either in the margins or in the fringes, depending on the value of a defcustom. > By default, I intended to use the same bitmaps in the margins and in the fringes. It took me a while to understand what I was doing wrong: I was seeing reversed bitmaps, but I hadn't considered the possibility that the two places where Emacs supports monochrome bitmaps would accept the same representation (unibyte strings) but use a different bit order. > The proposed patch updates the documentation to save the next person from experiencing the same pain. If so, then why do we need to mention this in the doc string? Won't the manual be enough? It is strange to mention just this factoid in the doc strings, when one can shoot themselves in the foot with bitmapped images in many exciting ways. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 23 11:44:23 2020 Received: (at 40784) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2020 15:44:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55756 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRe1X-00018u-ED for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:44:23 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-f49.google.com ([209.85.219.49]:43925) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRe1V-00018f-MI for 40784@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:44:22 -0400 Received: by mail-qv1-f49.google.com with SMTP id di6so3080751qvb.10 for <40784@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:44:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bj4wKWEsoFl89tX6kkKHRxgPB8mzxhMk7gcQ2vg60AE=; b=fOkXzyQ5WnhhRvcWtXN/f826yppwUrZ3Dh/bhg3RP0ire4qAnuInDaL8zZ9VdhjoT9 tAVP/vXlOMZvScjmTP2z2lAcNc+4VEbs/k9GygGy+ihIbXo+rsx4YXlnDG2Y/ZEnr1z2 Yz/81O+3bd2G8LYGvWE0StuLh4SUoqtKnPSi7mOGP4Dkb7moaduZeigBPdUe4BQr5Wpb MI7YimnxDOcbJV3SSsVK4NbT/Em5DwoHpzy2i8/hOKOFpAHMqLp6XLHjQOjzdgThWJyH kTxB4cUjzN9izUoUyB31v1x19kI8gycPhqJeBFO/ta10OpGLmcW0tZeeEJN0ieQXg7NY 3qKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bj4wKWEsoFl89tX6kkKHRxgPB8mzxhMk7gcQ2vg60AE=; b=AlbhkAnBWGIodcVQsAKNPaZaZPxBUjmUzFzLN2yYlwaqOHXE9x3VWYAmRTD55zfYQi uhman6ao24HL3pisaK0TCur0dzTPkwcg0lmNk0ClCASRGakCvX1rVodeusdh26N5Faak Kv1AH8EGC26HruTWxyXlrG7mttnnYoDsfTr/FsXojetBq6JJt2VtL9kHenDbPlrLCG9N FKeO7bzR2RB8Rwn6dISDQYei8SnKxNgf+xqXNqPUunjL5xe8o5/AahfZ2C3s+3wxbC+q u8fa/kPFUIMf99RaJdK7Hfr7MRkPEONrUbpJbvI8hJQz8FTAC8PmpeEaEusnUQCXZFQ7 3MPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZf7Yw1UqeL/vSh0O7wVEFT3VzEXzIfD6bI0UKQiUARtmtPiKhA aRujA672Uj23Ns2996FoxM65P3X9 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIvN4C/bRenV/kZYhti73yiHhNM3Yhg6wNsw/etAzSanOh0YqLzjdzuYiGyKy6YrUnJBqwuug== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e844:: with SMTP id l4mr4591698qvo.247.1587656655837; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:184:4180:66e7:54d6:bfeb:aa49:9d3b? ([2601:184:4180:66e7:54d6:bfeb:aa49:9d3b]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j9sm1736581qkk.99.2020.04.23.08.44.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#40784: Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM images To: Eli Zaretskii References: <15c13a13-efad-aee4-ac0e-f2630dc7ca11@gmail.com> <831roee0ko.fsf@gnu.org> <2e4d8eaf-5e7a-fc71-f515-a2513e47d615@gmail.com> <83ftcucjzw.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit-Claudel?= Message-ID: <94200480-37e9-14c9-14e6-ab1275512171@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:44:13 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83ftcucjzw.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40784 Cc: 40784@debbugs.gnu.org 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: -1.0 (-) On 23/04/2020 11.14, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: 40784@debbugs.gnu.org >> From: Clément Pit-Claudel >> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:35:54 -0400 >> >> Of course: I am currently writing a mode that displays indicators either in the margins or in the fringes, depending on the value of a defcustom. >> By default, I intended to use the same bitmaps in the margins and in the fringes. It took me a while to understand what I was doing wrong: I was seeing reversed bitmaps, but I hadn't considered the possibility that the two places where Emacs supports monochrome bitmaps would accept the same representation (unibyte strings) but use a different bit order. >> The proposed patch updates the documentation to save the next person from experiencing the same pain. > > If so, then why do we need to mention this in the doc string? Won't > the manual be enough? It is strange to mention just this factoid in > the doc strings, when one can shoot themselves in the foot with > bitmapped images in many exciting ways. The docstrings are usually good enough that I seldom read the manuals :/ Having a brief warning in the docstring is useful in that case. But I'm happy to yield to your judgement. Clément. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 25 05:59:48 2020 Received: (at 40784-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2020 09:59:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58550 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jSHbA-0007Yu-2m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 05:59:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56762) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jSHb8-0007Yi-K9 for 40784-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 05:59:46 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:50964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSHb3-0001vJ-9d; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 05:59:41 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4406 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jSHb2-00055B-Md; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 05:59:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:59:31 +0300 Message-Id: <83blnf998c.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel In-Reply-To: <94200480-37e9-14c9-14e6-ab1275512171@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel on Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:44:13 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#40784: Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM images References: <15c13a13-efad-aee4-ac0e-f2630dc7ca11@gmail.com> <831roee0ko.fsf@gnu.org> <2e4d8eaf-5e7a-fc71-f515-a2513e47d615@gmail.com> <83ftcucjzw.fsf@gnu.org> <94200480-37e9-14c9-14e6-ab1275512171@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40784-done Cc: 40784-done@debbugs.gnu.org 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: -3.3 (---) > Cc: 40784@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Clément Pit-Claudel > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:44:13 -0400 > > > If so, then why do we need to mention this in the doc string? Won't > > the manual be enough? It is strange to mention just this factoid in > > the doc strings, when one can shoot themselves in the foot with > > bitmapped images in many exciting ways. > > The docstrings are usually good enough that I seldom read the manuals :/ > Having a brief warning in the docstring is useful in that case. But I'm happy to yield to your judgement. Thanks, I've updated the manual with this caveat. From unknown Tue Jun 17 20:25:36 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 11:24:07 +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