> > indicate-buffer-boundaries would be the place to specify this.
> I don't see why the mapping should be restricted to just the bitmaps
> used for buffer boundaries ?
> As far as I know, these bitmaps are used in two ways. You can specify
> them by name, in a display property, and certain fixed bitmap names
> are used for specific standard purposes.
> In the case of the display property, you can give the bitmap any name
> you like; the display property specifies which name to use.
> My proposal is to create a similar level of specifying the name for
> the specific standard purposes.
I understand that, but I don't see why we need two different ways to
modify them -- you can redefine the standard bitmap directly, so I
don't see why do we need an extra level of indirection here (which has
to be done at the C level to an already quite complex piece of code).
Currently, what we have are standard bitmaps for "bob-left",
"bob-right", "eob-left", "eob-right" etc...
But, rather than following the existing pattern of naming them after
their purpose (like "continuation-line", "left-truncation" etc), I
have named them after their visual appearence, e.g. "top-left-angle",
"top-right-angle", "bottom-left-angle", etc...
That is a bug IMO, so I agree with Miles that those names should be
changed to match their purpose rather their appearence. If we do that,
the extra level of indirection you suggested is not necessary.