Subject: bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 10:02:55 +0300

[Please use Reply All to reply, to keep everyone on the CC list.]

> From: Zaz Brown <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 12:54:19 -0700
> 
> It's more convenient to be able to use forward-to-word without the
> argument.  For example, this would allow passing the function
> forward-to-word without having to use a lambda.
> 
> Most importantly, though, the current definition of forward-to-word
> does not match the doc string.  The doc string implies that with no
> argument, it goes forward 1 word.  And this has already caused
> confusion.

The doc string says "with argument", most probably meaning "with
prefix numeric argument".  IOW, it talks about interactive invocation.
In any case, the doc string is easy to fix/clarify.

But I'm still not convinced we need to change the signature of the
function.  What are the use cases where you'd want to pass
forward-to-word as a function argument to another function?