[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [BUG] in Release 8.2 - editing code in indirect buffer

From: Sebastien Vauban
Subject: Re: [O] [BUG] in Release 8.2 - editing code in indirect buffer
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:17:19 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.3.50 (windows-nt)

Hello Carsten,

Carsten Dominik wrote:
> On 23.9.2013, at 09:40, Rainer M Krug <address@hidden> wrote:
>> When starting to edit a code block via C-c ' everything works as expected
>> and the code block is highlighted and an indirect buffer is opened.
>> When I click into the highlighted block, I an "send" to the indirect buffer.
>> This behavior changes, after saving with C-s, even when nothing has been
>> edited: the area in the original org file looses its magic, and looks normal
>> again and can also be edited!
>> The indirect buffer stays functional and, upon close via C-c ' saves the
>> changes into the original buffer and *overwrites* changes done in this block
>> in the org document.
> This is a bug which is difficult to fix in all generality. What should really
> happen is that the text in the original buffer is made read-only. But so far
> this does not happen in our implementation (due to Dan Davison IIRC). The
> reason for this is that read-only text properties left by accident in a
> buffer are difficult to get rid of.
> There are many things the user could go back and screw up the original.
> That's why Org choses to protect with highlighting with an overlay. Note that
> this is not a protection against editing, but it is a visual warning.

I never knew that "your" goal was to make the code block read-only in the Org
buffer. Note that I would be really opposed to such a change. Editing code in
the prose would really become a pain to me -- please know that I NEVER use the
indirect buffer.

I hope that we will block such a functionality, would the read-only feature
become possible.

> However, what happens during saving is indeed a problem - the overlay gets
> lost (not really, it gets squeezed to zero by first removing the source code
> and then inserting the modified version).
> Could you please try this patch and test it to see if it is stable and does
> the right thing?

Best regards,

Sebastien Vauban

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]