Re: Comments on display.texi

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     > The reason is, it is more Lisp-like to use symbols than numbers.
>     > It is easier to debug a program when you see a symbol whose name
>     > is meaningful than when you see a number.
>
>     But when you start debugging this, you don't see the symbol name --
>     you will see the number.  The display property contains the number,
>     not the symbol.  
>
> Why can't the display property contain the symbol instead?
> That's easy to implement.
>
>     .. Similar to how display image properties work.
>
> The image specifier is a list that describes the desired result.  That
> is quite Lispy.  What's not good is to use an "opaque integer".
>
>     But it is EXACTLY the same interface that is used for images.
>     It is just the value that is different.
>
> The value is the issue here.  If the value were a list or vector that
> described the bitmap, it would be quite Lispy and I'd say it was good.

Ok, I'll change it so that the visible representation of a bitmap is
the symbol you provide with define-fringe-bitmap as you suggested.
And modify the rest of the fringe functions to work with symbols too.

I'll update the docs as well.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk