Subject: Re: bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string

From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:55:44 +0200

On 10.11.2016 20:49, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> If the consumer needs the text representation, they will call
>>
>> (thing-at-point 'foo)
>>
>> If they need the "real thing", they will call
>>
>> (foo-at-point)
>>
>> which we really expect to be defined.
>
> Which is again entirely backward incompatible, right?

Why do you think so? This is the normal usage of thingatpt.