bug#28645: Status: 26.0.50; semantic-ia-fast-jump jumps to a random place in buffer

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 > I understand. Then this must mean that the change in behavior in CEDET
 > was triggered with this commit:
 >
 > commit ee297210cffb9e8d05912686a39fa158414ba050
 > Author: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu>
 > Date:   Thu May 26 21:47:18 2016 -0400

Right.

 > I also understand your other arguments. But the question is: While
 > your recommendation makes sense, there clearly still is a lot of code
 > which uses switch-to-buffer without binding
 > switch-to-buffer-preserve-window-point to nil and it wasn't fixed when
 > this variable's default was changed. This is true in lisp code shipped
 > in emacs and it is probably also true for lots of third party code in
 > the wild. Who is going to fix all this code? And if it turns out that
 > the fixing all this code is too difficult / impossible, is it
 > justified to fix bug #4041 at the cost of causing numerous other bugs
 > (which arguably are due to misuse of switch-to-buffer, but they will
 > have to be fixed either way)?

This would have the banal consequence that all users who then set
‘switch-to-buffer-preserve-window-point’ to a non-nil value would have
to live with the wrong behavior forever: Nobody would care about fixing
it because "the default" DTRT already.

martin