[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Nov 2016 18:43:52 -0800 (PST) |
> > I can suggest adding a new function, with the features you
> > mention. We could even deprecate thing-at-point and advise
> > to use the new one instead.
>
> In this vein, I would propose deprecating `thing-at-point' in favor
> of `bounds-of-thing-at-point', which should provide all the necessary
> information for a `buffer-substring' call anyway (when it works).
This is really going from bad to worse. But I can't say I'm
surprised.
Eli suggested to keep the behavior backward-compatible, rather
than ensuring that the return value is a string. That is a
reasonable approach. It's OK by me.
It is the 2nd of the 3 approaches I described as reasonable
(https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21391#52):
d> 2. Make `thing-at-point', as before, return just what the
firat `if' clause returns, if that clause is taken.
IOW, move the removal of text properties (from non-nil
NO-PROPERTIES) into the second `if' clause.
Can we please just do that, and stop f__ing with thingatpt?
I also suggested that we do this, in that case:
d> Point out, in the doc, that `t-a-p', like `form-at-point'
and its callers, can return a Lisp THING of any kind OR a
string naming such a THING, and that the former case is
realized via property `thing-at-point' on the THING-argument
symbol.
That's important. The use of symbol property `thing-at-point'
is one of the most important features of library `thingatpt.el'.
Pointing out `thing-at-point' in the doc without pointing out
this feature is letting users down.
Each of the 3 approaches I described is reasonable. What is
not so reasonable are the kinds of changes you are suggesting
now.
If you are really entertaining removing existing functionality
then I would suggest you remove (deprecate) the NO-PROPERTIES
argument that was added fairly recently. It is unnecessary,
and its addition was apparently completely gratuitous.
Did that action correspond to a bug fix or a user request?
I cannot imagine that it did.
Are we going to start adding a NO-PROPERTIES arg to _every_
function that can return a string? If not, why does it make
sense here? How hard is it to remove the properties of a
string?
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, (continued)
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Tino Calancha, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Tino Calancha, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/11
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/13
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string,
Drew Adams <=
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Andreas Röhler, 2016/11/14
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Drew Adams, 2016/11/14
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Andreas Röhler, 2016/11/16
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Drew Adams, 2016/11/16
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/14
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Andreas Röhler, 2016/11/15
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/14
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Drew Adams, 2016/11/14
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/14
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Drew Adams, 2016/11/14