RE: [External] : forward-sexp

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >>> 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 ...

Sorry, but I can't grok your reply.  I have a
feeling it might have nothing to do with what
I wrote, but that might be mistaken.  In any
case, I don't follow it; sorry.