Re: "internal" designation [

[Andreas Röhler]

On 12.10.2016 07:11, Tino Calancha wrote:
> Andreas Röhler <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On 11.10.2016 19:20, Drew Adams wrote:
> > > (Sorry - I initially put this in a reply to the bug thread.
> > > Meant to send it here.)
> > >
> > > >    (defun thing-at-point-bounds-of-list-at-point ()
> > > >      "Return the bounds of the list at point.
> > > > -[Internal function used by `bounds-of-thing-at-point'.]"
> > > > +\[Internal function used by `bounds-of-thing-at-point'.\]"
> > > FWIW:
> > >
> > > I object to such an "internal" designation being in that doc string.
> > BTW this function looks redundant - can't see why lists shouldn't be
> > dealt with from
> >
> > bounds-of-thing-at-point
[ ... ]
> .
> I guess, trying to modify `bounds-of-thing-at-point' to match all kind
> of entities would increase the complexity of that function too much.

IMHO it's the other way around. The proceeding is quite simple

       (or (get thing 'end-op)
           (lambda () (forward-thing thing 1))))
      (funcall ;; Then move to beg.
       (or (get thing 'beginning-op)
           (lambda () (forward-thing thing -1))))

The current design maintains two approaches in parallel.
Can't see why beg-op resp. end-op shouldn't be able to deal with lists.