From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: point-min and 1 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:53:18 +0200 Message-ID: <4A83E28E.2090808@gmx.at> References: <83vdkvjbet.fsf@gnu.org> <83skfyjj56.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1250157296 23546 80.91.229.12 (13 Aug 2009 09:54:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:54:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 13 11:54:48 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MbX1D-00055p-Cx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:54:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33921 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MbX1A-0004Cz-Ma for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:54:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MbWzu-0003oq-Lm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:53:26 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MbWzp-0003ln-Ve for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:53:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56600 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MbWzp-0003lh-O9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:53:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:34114) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MbWzo-00011b-Vj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:53:21 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2009 09:53:19 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-61-170.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.61.170]) [62.47.61.170] by mail.gmx.net (mp070) with SMTP; 13 Aug 2009 11:53:19 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1938Jos+lp3UN6BpJyR47NdZYkaB5OQUrGr8MsLDM j2PVkWmN6gZ2uc User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.75 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:114168 Archived-At: > As a general rule, using 1 rather than (point-min) tends to also > introduce bugs where code only works when the buffer is widened, What sort of bugs? I suppose for every buffer 1 <= (point-min) holds invariantly. If the buffer is narrowed, clip_to_bounds asserts that (goto-char 1) goes to (goto-char (point-min)) so these two idioms are semantically equivalent regardless of whether a buffer is narrowed or not. Or what am I missing? > so it's > good practice to prefer (point-min) over 1. martin