[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string |
Date: |
Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:45:08 +0200 |
> Cc: tino.calancha@gmail.com, 21391@debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> 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 think I understand what you are suggesting. Can you show a
proposed patch, so I could see the light?
> > 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.
It is consistent now. The only way to make it inconsistent is to have
a 'thing-at-point' property that violates that, but we never do that
in Emacs proper, so if someone else does that, it would be their bug.
> > 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.
I might agree when I see a concrete proposal.
Thanks.
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, (continued)
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/07
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/07
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/07
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/07
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/07
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Tino Calancha, 2016/11/08
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/08
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Drew Adams, 2016/11/08
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/08
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Andreas Röhler, 2016/11/09
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/09
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/10
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/10
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/10
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/10
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/10
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/10
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/10
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/11/10
- bug#21391: 24.5; `thing-at-point' should return a string, Tino Calancha, 2016/11/11