Re: About column numbers

[Elias Mårtenson]

On 1 April 2016 at 05:39, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:

>> (it would break some code, but most of it is already fundamentally
>> broken because it should use `point-min` rather than hardcoding 1, so
>> it's not *that* terrible).
> Amusingly, always using (point-min) also leads to interesting bugs.

Oh yes.  Along with the "hard narrowing" discussion, it would be good to
have a way to get the "external point-min".  Currently the only portable
way (short of hardcoding 1) is via (save-restriction (widen)
(point-min)) which is rather round-about and inefficient.

I have done this on occasions. Are there any cases where the save/widen dance actually gives a result which is not 1?

Regards,

Elias