GNU bug report logs - #33662
26.1; Elisp manual, index entry `invisible/intangible text, and point' and target

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 33662 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 33662 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 26.1; Elisp manual, index entry `invisible/intangible text, and
 point' and target
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:46:15 +0000 (UTC)

This index entry seems a bit wrong, or perhaps the targeted text is a
bit wrong - in this sense: There is no occurrence of "tangible" or
"intangible" in that node.  Using that index entry and arriving at that
node, a user can wonder what happened - why there is nothing there that
is explicitly about "intangible text".  Perhaps the node should make
some mention of intangibility.


In GNU Emacs 26.1 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2018-05-30
Repository revision: 07f8f9bc5a51f5aa94eb099f3e15fbe0c20ea1ea
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.16299
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
 --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''

Message #8 received at 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#33662: 26.1;
 Elisp manual, index entry `invisible/intangible text, and point' and
 target
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 17:09:42 +0200

> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:46:15 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> 
> This index entry seems a bit wrong, or perhaps the targeted text is a
> bit wrong - in this sense: There is no occurrence of "tangible" or
> "intangible" in that node.  Using that index entry and arriving at that
> node, a user can wonder what happened - why there is nothing there that
> is explicitly about "intangible text".  Perhaps the node should make
> some mention of intangibility.

The text of that node did mention intangible originally, but Stefan
removed that as part of fixing bug#10222.  I'll let Stefan explain why
he thought that was a good idea.

Message #11 received at 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#33662: 26.1;
 Elisp manual, index entry `invisible/intangible text, and point' and
 target
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 19:28:05 -0500

> This index entry seems a bit wrong, or perhaps the targeted text is a
> bit wrong - in this sense: There is no occurrence of "tangible" or
> "intangible" in that node.  Using that index entry and arriving at that
> node, a user can wonder what happened - why there is nothing there that
> is explicitly about "intangible text".  Perhaps the node should make
> some mention of intangibility.

The section is about text that is intangible in the sense that that
point is automatically moved away from such text.

> The text of that node did mention intangible originally, but Stefan
> removed that as part of fixing bug#10222.  I'll let Stefan explain why
> he thought that was a good idea.

I removed mention of the `intangible` property since AFAICT the
corresponding code does not look at the `intangible` property (which is
not handled "After Commands" but directly during execution of the
various point motion Elisp functions).

In my understanding "invisible/intangible" here refers to the concepts
rather to the specific text-properties.

How 'bout the patch below?


        Stefan


diff --git a/doc/lispref/commands.texi b/doc/lispref/commands.texi
index 427379bc79..b6749d0a0c 100644
--- a/doc/lispref/commands.texi
+++ b/doc/lispref/commands.texi
@@ -1012,7 +1012,8 @@ Adjusting Point
 sequence of text that has the @code{display} or @code{composition}
 property, or is invisible.  Therefore, after a command finishes and
 returns to the command loop, if point is within such a sequence, the
-command loop normally moves point to the edge of the sequence.
+command loop normally moves point to the edge of the sequence, making this
+sequence effectively intangible.
 
   A command can inhibit this feature by setting the variable
 @code{disable-point-adjustment}:

Message #14 received at 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#33662: 26.1; Elisp manual, index entry `invisible/intangible
 text, and point' and target
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:05:03 -0800 (PST)

> > This index entry seems a bit wrong, or perhaps the targeted text is a
> > bit wrong - in this sense: There is no occurrence of "tangible" or
> > "intangible" in that node.  Using that index entry and arriving at
> that
> > node, a user can wonder what happened - why there is nothing there
> that
> > is explicitly about "intangible text".  Perhaps the node should make
> > some mention of intangibility.
> 
> The section is about text that is intangible in the sense that that
> point is automatically moved away from such text.
> 
> > The text of that node did mention intangible originally, but Stefan
> > removed that as part of fixing bug#10222.  I'll let Stefan explain
> why
> > he thought that was a good idea.
> 
> I removed mention of the `intangible` property since AFAICT the
> corresponding code does not look at the `intangible` property (which is
> not handled "After Commands" but directly during execution of the
> various point motion Elisp functions).
> 
> In my understanding "invisible/intangible" here refers to the concepts
> rather to the specific text-properties.
> 
> How 'bout the patch below?
>
> if point is within such a sequence, the
> -command loop normally moves point to the edge of the sequence.
> +command loop normally moves point to the edge of the sequence, making
> this
> +sequence effectively intangible.

Thanks for taking a look.  I can't really tell what the
right fix is.  I was looking for info about intangible
text (knowing nothing about it and guessing, wrongly,
that it might be something I could use in a particular
use case).

I used `i', and matched against that long index entry
(using regexp or substring completion matching):
`invisible/intangible text, and point'.

If that node is really about intangible text then your
change is maybe the right fix.  If it is not really
about that (or if it shouldn't really be about it)
then the fix is perhaps to change that index entry.

I'm guessing that that index entry should anyway be
changed somehow (perhaps become multiple entries,
maybe be removed altogether - dunno).  It's a long,
weird index entry.  And without substring matching
for `i' candidates it's unlikely that someone would
be able to use that entry to find that node for info
about "intangibility" anyway.

Since you're here ;-), and since you apparently wrote
`cursor-sensor.el', perhaps you could take a look at
bug #33664 also?  Thx.

Message #17 received at 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
Cc: drew.adams <at> oracle.com, 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#33662: 26.1;
 Elisp manual, index entry `invisible/intangible text, and point' and
 target
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2018 08:39:02 +0200

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 19:28:05 -0500
> Cc: 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> The section is about text that is intangible in the sense that that
> point is automatically moved away from such text.
> 
> > The text of that node did mention intangible originally, but Stefan
> > removed that as part of fixing bug#10222.  I'll let Stefan explain why
> > he thought that was a good idea.
> 
> I removed mention of the `intangible` property since AFAICT the
> corresponding code does not look at the `intangible` property (which is
> not handled "After Commands" but directly during execution of the
> various point motion Elisp functions).
> 
> In my understanding "invisible/intangible" here refers to the concepts
> rather to the specific text-properties.
> 
> How 'bout the patch below?

LGTM, thanks.

Message #20 received at 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>, drew.adams <at> oracle.com,
 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#33662: 26.1;
 Elisp manual, index entry `invisible/intangible text, and point' and
 target
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:52:26 +0100

close 33662 27.1
thanks

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
>> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 19:28:05 -0500
>> Cc: 33662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>> The section is about text that is intangible in the sense that that
>> point is automatically moved away from such text.
>> 
>> > The text of that node did mention intangible originally, but Stefan
>> > removed that as part of fixing bug#10222.  I'll let Stefan explain why
>> > he thought that was a good idea.
>> 
>> I removed mention of the `intangible` property since AFAICT the
>> corresponding code does not look at the `intangible` property (which is
>> not handled "After Commands" but directly during execution of the
>> various point motion Elisp functions).
>> 
>> In my understanding "invisible/intangible" here refers to the concepts
>> rather to the specific text-properties.
>> 
>> How 'bout the patch below?
>
> LGTM, thanks.

This was installed to master in 2018:

    commit d817d2cfb9bdb71fb3ed540d6601be4577272acc
    Author: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
    Date:   Sun Dec 9 08:34:35 2018 -0500
    
        * doc/lispref/commands.texi (Adjusting Point): Bug#33662
        
        Tweak text to clarify intangibility.

I'm therefore closing this bug.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.