[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: "internal" designation [

From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Re: "internal" designation [
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 08:47:35 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0

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'.]"
+\[Internal function used by `bounds-of-thing-at-point'.\]"

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

[ ... ]
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.

reply via email to

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