GNU bug report logs - #21391
24.5; `thing-at-point' returns error when called with arguments 'number t

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 21391 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, tino.calancha <at> gmail.com, dgutov <at> yandex.ru
Subject: bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:37:08 +0200

> From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 00:05:56 +0900 (JST)
> cc: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>, tino.calancha <at> gmail.com, 
>     21391 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > I don't understand why.  It's not like we don't have other functions
> > that can return different kinds of objects.
> Yes, and it's a good thing when it results in a simpler code.
> I don't think in this case it makes a simpler code or a code
> easier to follow, kinda the opposite.

I can envision it being used to simplify code as well, but I don't
think this is the important point.

> I don't think we actually need a polymorphic function here with the 
> bizarre behaviour pointed out in my previous email.  Instead of document
> its counter-intuitive behaviour, i would go for fixing the function to do
> just one obvious thing.  It would save the users time reading the manual.
> It's a change for better, a good thing.  We will have a better 
> function.  Everyone will be happy with this.

I understand, but backward compatibility is more important in my eyes.

I can suggest adding a new function, with the features you mention.
We could even deprecate thing-at-point and advise to use the new one
instead.  But I don't see here a reason good enough to change a
long-standing behavior of thing-at-point in backward-incompatible
ways, sorry.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.