GNU bug report logs - #9300
24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return nil when just after THING

Previous Next

Full log

Message #92 received at 9300 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 9300 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9300: 24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return nil
 when just after THING
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:07:52 +0200

On 21.06.2016 14:50, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
>> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:14:22 +0200
>>
>> On 20.06.2016 22:04, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
>>>> Cc: f92capac <at> gmail.com, 9300 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, dgutov <at> yandex.ru
>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, I agree with Dmitry: this has been a de-facto behavior long
>>>>> enough to consider it the correct one. If documentation is confusing
>>>>> in that it says otherwise, we should fix the documentation.
>>>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>>>
>>>> It is wrong to consider the current behavior "the correct one",
>>>> regardless of how long it has been in place.  It is wrong because
>>>> you cannot use it in a general and precise way.  It is just broken.
>>>> It has been broken for a long time, but it is broken nevertheless.
>>> That's immaterial.  It is being used in many places, and it's
>>> obviously useful.
>> It is useful, but not in the way of the lemma "at-point". At-point means
>> at cursor-position.
> Yes, the de-facto behavior is actually "at or around point".

In what programming language users will be satisfied with results which 
are correct or just a little bit false?
Well, assume there are some - so Emacs entered the area of AI :)

Previous Next

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