I think I've made as good an argument as I'm going to. It basically boils down to:

* if the keys are bound, it's quicker to call mark-foo-forward and then mark-foo-backward than to call mark-foo, then exchange-point-and-mark, then mark-foo again.
* This behavior is simpler and more predictable: mark-foo-forward always marks forward. mark-foo sometimes marks forward and sometimes backwards. The complexity of the various mark-foo functions can be seen in how many cases the docstring has. The behavior of the mark-foo-forward, mark-foo-backward functions can be gathered from the name, without reading the docstrings.

I understand we have different opinions, so if this isn't convincing, I'll bow out here. Thanks.

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:52 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> Cc: Ruijie Yu <ruijie@netyu.xyz>, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
>  "62892@debbugs.gnu.org" <62892@debbugs.gnu.org>, Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
> From: Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 23:17:01 -0400
>
> Is there anything I can do to make this patch easier to evaluate? As far as I'm aware, I've addressed
> all comments that have been made in this thread.

My POV is still as it was before: I'm not sure we should add these new
commands, since the existing commands already provide this
functionality, if you use "C-x C-x" to switch the direction.

I've seen nothing in the discussion which made me change my mind.  Did
I overlook some convincing arguments?