Re: Invisibility bug: `invisible' vs `display'

[Daniel Brockman]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Daniel Brockman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The bug did not let you override the `invisible' property
>> using the `display' property whenever you wanted;
>
> How do you know what I want?

Let me rephrase.  The bug did not let you override the `invisible'
property using the `display' property in arbitrary situations.

>> it _only_ let you do that at the start of invisible text --- clearly
>> counter-intuitive, counter-useful, illogical, and erroneous.
>
> A display embedded in an invisible area should obviously not
> be visible.

I'm glad we agree on that.

> At the immediate edge, it is not clear what should take preference.
> If we have a display overlay with identical start and end points
> both of which advance-on-insert, then the overlay _clearly_ marks
> the position _between_ the text before and behind it.  If the text
> _behind_ it is invisible, this should obviously not affect the
> overlay.  Even more so if the displayed overlay is
> non-advance-on-insert.

How can an overlay with identical start and end points
display anything?

>> If you want some text to show, why not just set `invisible'
>> to nil on that text?
>
> Display properties are not necessarily a part of text.

Well, set it on an overlay if you want.  What's the difference?

-- 
Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>