Re: region-active-p

[Miles Bader]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> I can't think of an operation that *shouldn't* check offhand, but if
> there is one, it would be a bad idea for these APIs to check because
> they wouldn't work with such an API if they did.  Since they're only
> used interactively AFAIK, postponing the check to the function that
> actually does the work is no big loss.

It's not a "big loss" but it is silly bloat.  Putting the check in the
common function will also likely reduce bugs because it will avoid the
case where the function writer forgets to do the extra check (and as
undo has shown, _not_ checking can be quite confusing).

If we're going for 100% rigid API compatibility, even in the most
obscure corner cases, then of course it shouldn't check.  But I'm not
sure we are.

-Miles

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