GNU bug report logs - #459
Zero-length overlays, overlay keymaps, and `overlays-at'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 459 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, t.s.cubitt.98 <at> cantab.net
Subject: bug#459: Zero-length overlays, overlay keymaps, and `overlays-at'
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:49:25 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: t.s.cubitt.98 <at> cantab.net,  459 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:37:07 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> > a) Modify (overlays-at pos) to return zero-length overlays that start
> >> > at pos (it already returns all other overlays that start at
> >> > pos). Again, this seems unlikely to have significant impact on other
> >> > parts of Emacs, since zero-length overlays are rarely used.
> >> >
> >> > b) Modify (overlays-at pos) to return zero-length overlays that start
> >> > at pos, and have a null front-advance and non-nil rear-advance
> >> > property. (The logic for this is the same as in option b) for the
> >> > overlay keymaps issue.)
> >> >
> >> > c) Leave `overlays-at' unchanged, and define a new function
> >> > `overlays-at-point' that implements either a) or b).
> 
> [...]
> 
> > We could add a new optional argument to overlays-at, to make it return
> > such overlays.  That would avoid the risk of breaking unsuspecting
> > callers.
> 
> Yeah, that's true.  Do you have any opinion on whether a) or b) would
> make the most sense if given this optional argument?  I'm leaning
> towards b)...

b) is fine by me, but let's hear from Stefan as well.

Previous Next

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