Re: mark-word

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Leo writes:

 > > `mark-word' itself should remain compatible with `kill-word' and
 > > `mark-sexp'.
 > 
 > Why?

Erm, backward compatibility is a good thing.  "Why *not* preserve it?"
is the right question, and it better have a good answer.

More specifically, mostly because it's a pain in the neck to deal with
functions whose specifications change for the convenience of the UI,
and because it's an offense against the general regularity of names
with no good reason.  True, symbol names are somewhat scarce, but I
rather doubt anyone in their right mind would give `mark-entire-word'
anything but the proposed semantics.  It should be easy for people who
actually prefer that behavior (if any, I admit) to revert.  And some
of us support Emacsen that won't have the change, often simultaneously
with the latest code.  XEmacs does so as project policy, and many
organizational environments will do so too.