GNU bug report logs - #40784
Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and XBM images

Previous Next

Full log

Message #17 received at 40784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Pit-Claudel <cpitclaudel <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 40784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40784: Clarifying the difference between fringe bitmaps and
 XBM images
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:44:13 -0400

On 23/04/2020 11.14, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: 40784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> From: Clément Pit-Claudel <cpitclaudel <at> gmail.com>
>> 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.

Previous Next

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