Subject: bug#16413: 24.3.50; Inconsistent behavior of text property functions in narrowed buffer

From: Daniel Colascione <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:35:01 -0800

On 01/11/2014 07:42 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Narrowing *is* generally useful for treating part of a buffer
>> as a consistent unit, though, especially when that part is syntactically
>> different from the rest of the buffer.
>
> Actually, from where I stand, narrowing is harmful.  If I could get rid
> of it, I would.

Really? It's a very useful feature at a *user* level even if we ignore 
the lisp-level implications. Doesn't everyone whack C-x n d once in a 
while? Would you have implemented narrowing by putting invisible 
properties on the inaccessible region?

> The reason is precisely because it means different
> things to different people in different contexts, and these things
> require subtly different behaviors which are mutually incompatible.

As I see it, there are generally two use cases:

1) I'm a user and want to limit my view of the buffer, and
2) I'm a lisp program and want to put ad-hoc bounds on various operations.

I don't see why the two uses would be incompatible.