Re: forward-comment doesn't (quite) match its documentation

[Miles Bader]

none@example.invalid (Alan Mackenzie) writes:
> I think it would also be a good idea to say something like "This function
> moves point forward across COUNT _complete_ comments", since if point is
> already within a comment, forward-comment will move point over neither
> the head nor tail of it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think otherwise -- almost
all `relative movement' commands work that way, using only local context
to do their work (and indeed, doing otherwise doesn't seem to make much
sense in this case).

While it's good to have comments be precise, it's also desirable to
avoid bloating them unnecessarily.

Perhaps if you would give some idea of how you _thought_ it should work,
it would clarify things...

-Miles
-- 
P.S.  All information contained in the above letter is false,
      for reasons of military security.