> So, if the next-error-overlay-arrow-position's string doesn't affect > anything but compile.el, how come text terminals started to display > the arrow as result of a discussion about GUD and Edebug? What am I > missing?
I might be losing your meaning, but the conflict was between GUD and next-error. Juri and I changed them to use their own overlay arrow. Juri then suggested that the default value for the property overlay-arrow-string should be changed to "=>" which was done by Kim (2005-04-08). Previously it was nil which meant that no arrow was displayed in a text terminal which was not by design, but might have been your preference. Currently simple.el has: (put 'next-error-overlay-arrow-position 'overlay-arrow-string "=>") but this could be removed as it is the default now anyway (I think Juri disappeared again before 2005-04-08). Alternatively, as suggested, it could be changed to: (put 'next-error-overlay-arrow-position 'overlay-arrow-string "") I don't think the condition (unless (display-graphic-p)... is necessary (or desirable). If there is a fringe, a bitmap is used and overlay-arrow-string is not used. If there is no fringe, then presumably you don't want "=>" overwriting text whether the terminal is text or graphic. I suggest this latter change until Juri (or maybe Stefan) comes up with a better solution that will work with "=>". Nick _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
