On 2016-08-30 11:01, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Also, why not just introduce a function buffer-min, instead of the
>>  (save-restriction) + (widen) dance?
> 
> We could, yes.
> 
> Note that it wouldn't help us in the present case, since we will look
> (via compare-buffer-substring) at the whole buffer's text, so we need to
> widen anyway.

I see, thanks! I didn't realize that these functions needed widening. Its documentation doesn't seem to mention it, nor its docstring. What about the attached patch?