From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/18591 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hrvoje Niksic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: MIME composition (was: Storing the group a message has been written to) Date: 14 Nov 1998 02:14:40 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035157089 6988 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:38:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:38:09 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from karazm.math.uh.edu (karazm.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.1]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA03263 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:15:12 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by karazm.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAB12893; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:15:02 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:14:57 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [209.195.19.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA07713 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:14:48 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA03249 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:14:42 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from hniksic@localhost) by jagor.srce.hr (8.9.0/8.9.0) id CAA09590; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:14:40 +0100 (MET) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: Hrvoje X-Face: &{dT~)Pu6V<0y?>3p$;@vh\`C7xB~A0T-J%Og)J,@-1%q6Q+, gs<-9M#&`I8cJp2b1{vPE|~+JE+gx;a7%BG{}nY^ehK1"q#rG O,Rn1A_Cy%t]V=Brv7h writes: > I would, instead, go ahead with the invisible text and make the > XEmacs group fix the invisible text pointer problems.... (this > would certainly give them the motivation to do it). XEmacs doesn't implement intangible extent property not because of lack of motivation but because of lack of consensus of how it should be done. FYI, handling the `intangible' property correctly is very very hard, because you have to consider easiness of interface, easiness of implementation, backward compatibility, and FSF Emacs compatibility. These four are often in conflict in various ways -- I can elaborate on this if you're curious, and perhaps on another mailing list. Take my word on this, as I tried. > Plus, narrowing should be a *user* feature that you'd be removing > from their power by narrowing the buffer for them. (If they > narrowed the buffer around a paragraph of theirs, and then hit C-c > C-c, what do you do? What if they narrow then un-narrow thus > exposing all your junk at the end? Confuse-a-user-R-us? Although there are precedents for narrowing not being a user feature (say `info.el'), I agree it should remain that way for message composition. As you pointed out, `C-x n w' removes *all* narrowing, not just the most recent one. -- Hrvoje Niksic | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- If we get involved in a nuclear war, will the electromagnetic pulses from exploding bombs damage my videotapes?