Re: save-excursion again

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stefan Monnier writes:
 > > Which brings up a question for Stefan.  Are you saying that the
 > > condition-case-save-point-and-mark aspect of `save-excursion' should
 > > be abstracted out (say as `save-region') and separated from the
 > > save-buffer aspect?
 > 
 > Not sure what you mean.

Well, ditto.  I'm really unclear on why with-current-buffer is always
an appropriate substitute for (save-excursion (set-buffer fu-boofer)
...), for the same kinds of reasons I'm kinda unclear on why global
match data is ever a good idea.  Not everybody programs in functional
style; you may have cause to call code which has nasty side effects on
the buffer you're explicitly working on.

 > the semantics of "restore point in another buffer" is murky in
 > Emacs.

I don't really see why.  It would be the same as now except that you
don't do a final set-buffer.  Whether that would be useful or not is
another question.  Evidently you don't see it as useful, though, which
answers my question.