GNU bug report logs -
#6687
[24.0.50] end-of-buffer cursor position with an overlay
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:36:34 +0200
with message-id <83pqu1b78t.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#6687: [24.0.50] end-of-buffer cursor position with an overlay
has caused the GNU bug report #6687,
regarding [24.0.50] end-of-buffer cursor position with an overlay
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
6687: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6687
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
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
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
> 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.
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.