[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 18:53:33 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.3.50 (windows-nt)

Hi Carsten,

Carsten Dominik wrote:
> On 24.9.2013, at 18:17, Sebastien Vauban <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 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 only mean while there is a special buffer also editing this block!

Pfff!  I'm relieved -- I should have understood it ;-)

Best regards,

Sebastien Vauban

reply via email to

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