On 1 April 2016 at 05:39, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> >> (it would break some code, but most of it is already fundamentally
> >> broken because it should use `point-min` rather than hardcoding 1, so
> >> it's not *that* terrible).
> > Amusingly, always using (point-min) also leads to interesting bugs.
>
> Oh yes.  Along with the "hard narrowing" discussion, it would be good to
> have a way to get the "external point-min".  Currently the only portable
> way (short of hardcoding 1) is via (save-restriction (widen)
> (point-min)) which is rather round-about and inefficient.


I have done this on occasions. Are there any cases where the save/widen
dance actually gives a result which is not 1?

Regards,
Elias