|
From: | Andreas Röhler |
Subject: | bug#9300: 24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return nil when just after THING |
Date: | Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:07:52 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0 |
On 21.06.2016 14:50, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> 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 <drew.adams@oracle.com> Cc: f92capac@gmail.com, 9300@debbugs.gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ruFWIW, 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".
In what programming language users will be satisfied with results which are correct or just a little bit false?
Well, assume there are some - so Emacs entered the area of AI :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |