[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional |
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 <zazbrown@zazbrown.com>
> 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?
- bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional, Zaz Brown, 2023/05/21
- bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/26
- Message not available
- bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional, Zaz Brown, 2023/05/27
- bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/28
- bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional, dalanicolai, 2023/05/29
- bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional, Juri Linkov, 2023/05/29
- bug#63626: [PATCH] Make forward and backward-to-word arg optional, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/31