Fwd: Re: bug#9300: 24.0.50; `bounds-of-thing-at-point' does not return nil when just after THING

[Andreas Röhler]

Hi John,

suggesting a poll WRT this question.  While siding with Drew, there might also be reasons for the opposite.

Cheers,

Andreas

-------- Forwarded Message --------

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 15:50:11 +0300
From:	Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
Reply-To:	Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
To:	Andreas Röhler <address@hidden>
CC:	address@hidden

> From: Andreas Röhler <address@hidden>
> 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 <address@hidden>
> >> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> >>
> >>> 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".