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: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 21391 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, tino.calancha <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:04:20 +0200

On 08.11.2016 17:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> But then somehow the discussion shifted to be about whether to _force_
> thing-at-point value to be a string, even if it isn't for some reason.

I'd suggest trying to fix that from the other end, as one alternative. 
If we agree that the return value of thing-at-point should be a string, 
(get 'number 'thing-at-point) can't return `number-at-point', it should 
return a function that will return the said number as a string.

And of all things enumerated in thing-at-point's docstring, IIUC only 
number has such problem. Which leaves third-party things, but, they will 
either need to be fixed, or people will have to remain content not to 
use thing-at-point with NO-PROPERTIES argument on them.

> I don't understand the rationale for such a change.  Yes,
> thing-at-point was most probably always meant to return a string.
> Yes, Lisp code that causes it to return some other object is probably
> wrong.  However, the change that allowed this was introduced 19 years
> ago; who knows what code out there actually uses this loophole?

I can't imagine that loophole to be too useful. The proposal above 
should leave all such uses of third-party things alone. But yes, anyone 
who uses (thing-at-point 'number) as a (longer, pointless) substitute 
for (number-at-point) will have to change their code.

> If
> there is such code, why would we want to break it?  To what end?  And
> if no code uses this loophole, why do we care that it exists?

To make thing-at-point behavior more consistent. This kind of thing is 
usually performed with future new uses in mind. But it also might help 
with code maintenance a bit, for existing users (not likely to make much 
of a difference, but still; the danger of breakage is not very 
significant either).

> IOW, thing-at-point no longer has any known bugs, and we are talking
> about forcibly breaking a use case that does no harm to us, and can
> only happen if someone abuses the 'thing-at-point' property, which
> would make it that someone's bug/misfeature, for them to fix.

Yes. The fix is very easy, though, for projects that retain at least 
somewhat active maintainer.

Previous Next

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