Subject: bug#38051: 26.3; (elisp) `Insertion' use of verb "point"

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 22:14:33 +0200

> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:56:29 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> 
> > > 1. From a user point of view (conceptual model),
> > >    markers _are_ objects that can be located
> > >    _in_ a buffer, _at_ buffer positions.
> > 
> > That is incorrect.  A marker stores a buffer and a location within
> > that buffer, but it isn't itself located in a buffer.
> 
> From a user point of view.  That's the point.
> That can't be "incorrect".

Of course it can.  And it is.

> It's a question of what the user needs as a
> conceptual model to work with markers (and
> overlays, for that matter).

Wrong conceptual models will bite you down the road.  It is best to
have correct conceptual models.

> > Overlays are completely different beasts.
> 
> If you say so (without any explanation of why you
> think so).
> 
> Does an overlay store a buffer and two locations
> within that buffer?

No.  Like I said: it's a different beast.

> What is it in the user-observable behavior of a
> marker that requires introducing the extra
> (I'd say extraneous) construct of it "pointing to"
> a buffer and a position within that buffer?

Convenience and clarity of description.

And please, can we stop this bikeshedding?  It goes nowhere.