On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:58:31 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:31:31 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Probably just for aficionados at the moment...
>
> Actually, I think that all the rest of these comments should be included
> in the log. There's useful discussion h
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:58:31 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:31:31 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Probably just for aficionados at the moment...
>
> Actually, I think that all the rest of these comments should be included
> in the log. There's useful discussion
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:31:31 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Probably just for aficionados at the moment...
Actually, I think that all the rest of these comments should be included
in the log. There's useful discussion here.
> Given that clashes between overlays and text properties are a proble
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:31:31 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Probably just for aficionados at the moment...
Actually, I think that all the rest of these comments should be included
in the log. There's useful discussion here.
> Given that clashes between overlays and text properties are a proble
Except for where invisibility is involved, replace the use of overlays
with text properties, which are considerably more efficient.
---
Probably just for aficionados at the moment...
Given that clashes between overlays and text properties are a problem
and overlays are considered expensive, switc
Except for where invisibility is involved, replace the use of overlays
with text properties, which are considerably more efficient.
---
Probably just for aficionados at the moment...
Given that clashes between overlays and text properties are a problem
and overlays are considered expensive, switc
