[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: bug#9300: 24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return n

From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Fwd: Re: bug#9300: 24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return nil when just after THING
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:23:24 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0

Hi John,

suggesting a poll WRT this question.  While siding with Drew, there might also be reasons for the opposite.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: bug#9300: 24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return nil when just after THING
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:50:11 +0300
From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
To: Andreas Röhler <address@hidden>
CC: address@hidden

> From: Andreas Röhler <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:14:22 +0200
> On 20.06.2016 22:04, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
> >> From: Drew Adams <address@hidden>
> >> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> >>
> >>> FWIW, I agree with Dmitry: this has been a de-facto behavior long
> >>> enough to consider it the correct one. If documentation is confusing
> >>> in that it says otherwise, we should fix the documentation.
> >> I couldn't disagree more.
> >>
> >> It is wrong to consider the current behavior "the correct one",
> >> regardless of how long it has been in place.  It is wrong because
> >> you cannot use it in a general and precise way.  It is just broken.
> >> It has been broken for a long time, but it is broken nevertheless.
> > That's immaterial.  It is being used in many places, and it's
> > obviously useful.
> It is useful, but not in the way of the lemma "at-point". At-point means 
> at cursor-position.

Yes, the de-facto behavior is actually "at or around point".

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]