Re: question about narrowed behavior of next-property-change et al.

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>     I think if there's no property change before (point-max), and the
>     user passed LIMIT == nil, then it should return nil, regardless of
>     whether (point-max) is due to narrowing or not.
> 
> It is certainly more logical that way--the question is, what will it
> break?  It would be necessary to check all the programs that use
> next-property-change and make sure they are still going to work.

Since the suggested change would only effect narrowed buffers, and only
to make them act more like a normal non-narrowed buffer, I would think
that only code that explicitly uses narrowing is potentially a problem
(under the assumption that a narrowed buffer should usually appear to
lisp code as if it were a normal buffer containing only the narrowed
region).

Since most code is written assume a `normal' buffer, I suspect the net
effect of the current wierd behavior is to cause problems with such code
expecting the usual non-narrowed behavior in the rare case where it is
used with a narrowed buffer.

-Miles
-- 
Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, 
 beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?