bug#31067: 27.0.50; After-string hidden by subsequent invisible text

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > IOW, the question is what should happen when the end-point of the
>> > overlay with after-string is in invisible text?
>> If some (or all) of the end of the overlay-with-after-string is made
>> invisible, then the situation is much less clear and I could see
>> arguments either way, but if I get to choose then I think it makes sense
>> to consider that the after string is "attached" to the end of the
>> overlay, i.e. if the end of the overlay is invisible then so is the
>> after-string.
> But that's exactly what happens in your original example.

Hmmm.... not that I can see: the overlay covers "text" and none of it
is hidden.

I guess you could pay attention to the stickiness of the boundaries, but
in my example the end of the overlay-with-after-string is not sticky, so
you could say that it ends right after "t" and not on the immediately
following "(dimensionless) point".  Also I changed my test so that the
beginning of the invisible overlay is not sticky (so that the
"(dimensionless) point" between "t" and "\n" is supposedly not affected
by this overlay):

(defun foo ()
  (interactive)
  (with-current-buffer "*scratch*"
    (add-to-invisibility-spec '(foo . t))
    (let ((beg (point)))
      (insert "text")
      (let ((ol1 (make-overlay beg (point))))
        (overlay-put ol1 'after-string "!after!")
        (overlay-put ol1 'evaporate t)))
    (let ((beg (point)))
      (insert "\nhidden")
      (let ((ol1 (make-overlay beg (point) nil t)))
        (overlay-put ol1 'invisible 'foo)
        (overlay-put ol1 'evaporate t)))))

but the result is still the same.  And think this one is even more
clearly a bug, because according to stickiness the two overlays "don't
touch" (as can be tested by carefully moving point right after the "t" and
inserting "-" which gives you a display of "text!after!-" showing that
the "-" was inserted between the two overlays rather than into the
first or into the second or into both).

> Btw, "some or all of the end" is a strange wording,

Indeed, I added "or all" after the fact and did it poorly.  I meant "if
the last few chars covered by the overlay (or the whole text covered
by the overlay) is made invisible ...".


        Stefan