bug#9300: 24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return nil when just after THING

[Drew Adams]

> >>> 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.  What is expected when calling "C-x ="
> -- probably not info WRT char after, but at cursor position.

Yes, but this has all been said before.  Eli knows this, but it does
not sway him.

And at least as important is the fact that "-at-" needs to refer to
only ONE POSITION, not two.

Currently, the function acts the same for both point and point-minus-1.
You cannot tell whether it has determined that the thing it returns
is at point or at point-minus-1.

But this too has all been said before, and Eli knows this too.
It too has not persuaded him.  It seems not to matter whether the
function DTRT.  The only thing that seems to matter to him is that
this broken behavior has been in effect for a while.