|
| From: | Lennart Borgman (gmail) |
| Subject: | Re: mark-word |
| Date: | Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:52:25 +0100 |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070728 Thunderbird/2.0.0.6 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
Using thing-at-point to make mark-thing-at-point (and then mark-work-at-point etc) would mean that it is consistent and eaiser for the user to remember.Why? The user doesn't care how mark-word-at-point (incidentally, this is a crap name) is implemented.
If (thing-at-point 'word) returns "MYWORD" (in a different format though) then I would expect something like (mark-thing-at-point 'word) to mark MYWORD. And if there was a function mark-word-at-point I would expect it to mark MYWORD, etc.
Don't you?And if thing-at-point is buggy and unnecessary hairy that is IMO not any excuse not to use it when it simplifies other code. Also from a user point it at least makes things consistent (even with bugs).
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |