|
From: | Tino Calancha |
Subject: | bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string |
Date: | Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:07:15 +0900 (JST) |
User-agent: | Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) |
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
Indeed, this sounds the right usage for me, and for an user who has read the part of the manual refering to `thing-at-point'.On 10.11.2016 21:59, Eli Zaretskii wrote:Because currently they can call thing-at-point without defining foo-at-point. AFAIU, you suggest to deny them this possibility, and force them to define foo-at-point for every foo.They'll really have to do that only for string-unrepresentable foos.Like currently (thing-at-point 'symbol) returns a string, whereas (symbol-at-point) returns an interned symbol. That's nothing new.
If i want the list object i call `list-at-point', and if i just want the text representation i would call (thing-at-point 'list). The fact that we have that duality in the code, i.e. I) (thing-at-point 'foo) II) (foo-at-point) in some sense is asking for I) and II) returning two different things. I find it easier if I) always return a string.Note also that we don't need to define one version II) per each THING: just in the few cases where it has sense to return the THING with a different type than a string. We already have defined all II) functions
in `thingatpt.el'.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |