Re: [External] : forward-sexp

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Drew Adams wrote:

>>> But similarly, if you try just ["abc] or ["(abc] then
>>> you'll run into the same group-didn't-end
>>> (no-matching-delimiter) behavior.
>> 
>> There should be no incorrect commands, if there are there
>> will be people using them "incorrectly", if you will.
>> But if every command work everywhere none of that can
>> happen, right?
>
> What do you think is incorrect in the examples given?
> When you ask Emacs to go forward in such a way as to take
> into account balanced delimiters such as parens, then if it
> doesn't find a closing delimiter that matches before the end
> of the buffer, it tells you that. Seems like the right
> behavior, to me...

No, that would be the way to do it, if there is no notion of
symbolic expressions, one would fall back to some other
behavior, preferably something not to far away from both the
name of the function or the usual way it is used in practice,
i.e. what would be thought to be expected to reflect that in
the supposed sexp-less setting ...

So either one would have a small set of functions that would
work everywhere, but differently depending on the context,
_or_ one would have a huge, always growing set of functions
and every one of those would work in one and only one
context ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal