|
From: | Tino Calancha |
Subject: | bug#9300: 24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return nil when just after THING |
Date: | Mon, 20 Jun 2016 22:11:37 +0900 (JST) |
User-agent: | Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) |
It's a matter of definition. If we say there is, then there is. We could also add a variable, of course.Sure, definitions are free. Maybe the doc string is not clear enough: at point or right before than at point would be more precise.
* I) and II) agreeDo they?
No they don't, sorry for that. It should read:V) and VI) agree but I) and II) disagree. It seems it depends from the point of view and how you ask. It shouldn't: or always there is a list or never.
but III) and IV disagree. I would expect III) and IV) returning the same value.Agree. But will you be satisfied if they both return "(foo bar)"?
I am sure you know my answer :-) Regards, Tino
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |