npostavs@users.sourceforge.net writes:

> Dima Kogan <dima@secretsauce.net> writes:
>
>> Hi. I'm open to suggestions. The goal was to retain the previous logic
>> for any existing code, but to provide improved user-facing behavior.

Ack! So this is what happens when you submit a patch, and then talk
about it more than 2 years later. Turns out preserving compatibility
with existing code wasn't my goal at all. Rather, the goal was to avoid
an infinite loop that results if (diff-hunk-next) unconditionally uses
the new logic:

    diff-hunk-next         calls
    diff--wrap-navigation  calls
    diff-bounds-of-hunk    calls
    diff-beginning-of-hunk calls
    diff-hunk-next


>  it looks like interactiveness is not what you actually care about.
> You could do something like this instead:
>
> (defun diff-hunk-next (&optional count skip-hunk-start)
>   "Go to the next COUNT'th hunk"
>   (interactive (list (prefix-numeric-value current-prefix-arg) t))
>   (diff--wrap-navigation
>    skip-hunk-start
>    "next hunk"
>    'diff--internal-hunk-next
>    diff-hunk-header-re
>    (lambda () (goto-char (car (diff-bounds-of-hunk))))
>    count))
>
> Then instead of (call-interactively 'diff-hunk-next) you can just do
> (diff-hunk-next nil t)

Yes. Agreed. Revised patch attached. I'll try to respond to any comments
quickly so that we all can remember what this is about.