Re: forward-comment and syntax-ppss

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 17.12.2016 01:16, Drew Adams wrote:

> The fault here is not from the "other code" narrowing or
> widening.  It is from the "current code" calling such
> "other code".  Code needs to choose wisely any "other code"
> that it tries to use.

We don't have a lot of choice if we want to avoid code duplication. 
Simply copying it over and removing the widen call is not an option.

> But if the called code is indeed defective - if it should
> in fact restore the initial buffer restriction after it
> widens or narrows to do its work, then that should be
> fixed.

The point is that "its work" does not honor the narrowing. And we want 
it to.

> And in particular, you need to know how it handles a buffer
> restriction - at least if you are _counting on_ some particular
> behavior wrt that.  You need to know whether you need to wrap
> its call (or some other bits of your code) in `save-restriction',
> for example.

Knowing doesn't help either.

> Or to otherwise set and save some restriction limits, and then
> restore them at the proper time.  Restriction limits are just
> buffer positions.  Setting and saving them is not rocket science.

Doesn't help.

> It sounds like you are complaining that when you use function
> `abcde' it doesn't behave as you would like.  Maybe consider
> not trying to expect it to do something that it does not do?

You're so eager to type out heaps of condescending text. Maybe try 
reading carefully next time?

> possibly enhance the
> code you were thinking about calling unwisely,...

What do you think these discussions are all about? Shrugging and 
complaining about our collective bad luck?

Of course it's about improving code, as well as the guidelines to do so 
regarding the usage of narrowing.