RE: save-excursion and the mark

[Drew Adams]

> I disagree.  Lots of users write little bits of lisp, or get lisp from their
> colleagues and friends.  Much of it may never get published outside their
> small network or corporate walls.  The point is that this is a long-
> published and API and you will never know everyone who is relying on the
> documented behavior.
> 
> When it's sometimes necessary to break an API, it's best to do it in a
> backward compatible way, or progressively deprecate it.  In any case, I
> think it's important to justify the break with a compelling rationale.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Unused AFAICT" often isn't such exactly because you can't reach your
> entire user base, and you can't know how they are using it.

+1 - Change requires a compelling argument in favor, not just
     "Anyone here happen to see a compelling reason not to...?")

(At least that's the way it used to work.)