GNU bug report logs -
#6687
[24.0.50] end-of-buffer cursor position with an overlay
Previous Next
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 6687 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 6687 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#6687
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:20:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Tetsuo Tsukamoto <czkmt <at> ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
.
(Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:20:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
Emacs 24.0.50 displays end-of-buffer cursor at different position
from where Emacs 23 does when there is an overlay at eob with
before- or after-string.
Emacs 24.0.50:
o $ emacs -Q
Then point is at eob.
o M-: (overlay-put (make-overlay (point) (point)) 'before-string "?")
Then cursor is placed on "?".
(cursor position is indicated with [ and ])
0) [?]
o Typing x (or any other char) twice results in the following
behavior.
1) [?]x 2) ?xx[]
Emacs 24.0.50, point not at eob:
0) ?[] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
Emacs 23.2, point at eob or not at eob:
0) ?[] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
So only Emacs 24.0.50 with point at eob displays cursor
differently relative to an overlay placed at eob.
--
Tetsuo Tsukamoto
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#6687
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:46:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 6687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
With further testings, I noticed that the condition where problem
is reproduced is not (eobp) but (and (bolp) (eolp)), i.e. when
point is at an empty line.
In addition, I should correct the conclusion of my first message as
follows.
Emacs 24.0.50 with point at an empty line displays cursor
differently relative to an overlay placed at the point.
In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.1)
of 2010-07-21 on t400s.localdomain
Windowing system distributor `Fedora Project', version 11.0.10802000
Important settings:
value of $LC_ALL: nil
value of $LC_COLLATE: nil
value of $LC_CTYPE: nil
value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil
value of $LC_MONETARY: nil
value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil
value of $LC_TIME: nil
value of $LANG: ja_JP.utf8
value of $XMODIFIERS: @im=none
locale-coding-system: utf-8
default enable-multibyte-characters: t
Major mode: Lisp Interaction
--
Tetsuo Tsukamoto
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#6687
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:26:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 6687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Sorry for many postings,
With additional testings I found the following relationships
between point positions and the cursor behaviors under Emacs
24.0.50.
Invoked Emacs with emacs -Q. After I moved the point so as to meet
one of the four conditions mentioned in results, I did the
following.
0) M-: (overlay-put (make-overlay (point) (point)) 'before-string "?")
1) Type x.
2) Type additional x.
Results were as follows (cursor position is indicated with [ and ]).
initial point position : cursor behavior
(and (eobp) (eolp)) : 0) [?] 1) [?]x 2) ?xx[]
(and (not (eobp)) (eolp)): 0) [?] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
(and (eobp) (not (eolp))): 0) ?[] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
(not (or (eobp) (eolp))) : 0) ?[] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
Suppose 1st result may not be expected. 2nd result is also
different from what Emacs 23.2 produces. 3rd and 4th results seem
OK.
--
Tetsuo Tsukamoto
Information forwarded
to
owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#6687
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:48:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 6687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Each (eobp) that appear in my previous message should be replaced
with (bolp), as follows.
initial point position : cursor behavior
(and (bolp) (eolp)) : 0) [?] 1) [?]x 2) ?xx[]
(and (not (bolp)) (eolp)): 0) [?] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
(and (bolp) (not (eolp))): 0) ?[] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
(not (or (bolp) (eolp))) : 0) ?[] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
--
Tetsuo Tsukamoto
Reply sent
to
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:34:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Tetsuo Tsukamoto <czkmt <at> ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:34:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #19 received at 6687-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> From: Tetsuo Tsukamoto <czkmt <at> ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:25:46 +0900
> Cc:
>
> Invoked Emacs with emacs -Q. After I moved the point so as to meet
> one of the four conditions mentioned in results, I did the
> following.
>
> 0) M-: (overlay-put (make-overlay (point) (point)) 'before-string "?")
> 1) Type x.
> 2) Type additional x.
>
> Results were as follows (cursor position is indicated with [ and ]).
>
> initial point position : cursor behavior
> (and (eobp) (eolp)) : 0) [?] 1) [?]x 2) ?xx[]
> (and (not (eobp)) (eolp)): 0) [?] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
> (and (eobp) (not (eolp))): 0) ?[] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
> (not (or (eobp) (eolp))) : 0) ?[] 1) ?x[] 2) ?xx[]
>
> Suppose 1st result may not be expected. 2nd result is also
> different from what Emacs 23.2 produces. 3rd and 4th results seem
> OK.
Sorry for such a long delay, but I finally fixed this (in revision
102440).
Thanks for reporting this, and for a detailed test case.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:24:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 14 years and 184 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.