GNU bug report logs - #64185
proposal for new function: copy-line

Previous Next

Full log

Message #44 received at 64185 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: "64185 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <64185 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, "me <at> eshelyaron.com" <me <at> eshelyaron.com>,
 "zkanfer <at> gmail.com" <zkanfer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [External] : bug#64185: proposal for new function: copy-line
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 18:42:36 +0000

> > FWIW -
> >
> > Point is the cursor position.  So I'd suggest
> > just "point" (or "cursor-position", if you
> > like), and not "point-position".
> >
> > We do use `pos' in various names to mean a
> > buffer position, but in those cases it
> > doesn't stand for point (the cursor position).
> > So I agree that `pos' shouldn't be used here.
> 
> In the patch a new position is counted by lines,
> so maybe a better name would be 'duplicate-line-final-line'.
> But this double "line-line" doesn't look nice.

Is it about absolute line number, relative line
number, cursor position (point), some other buffer
position,...?

A guess, from what you just wrote, is that it's
about the relative line number, i.e., relative
to the number of the line of the cursor initially.
(Just a guess; haven't followed this thread.)

Previous Next

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