bug#21195: 25.0.50; Let MARKER arg to `set-marker' be a number

bug#21195: 25.0.50; Let MARKER arg to `set-marker' be a number

[Drew Adams]

Minor enhancement request.  Let `set-marker' (aka `move-marker') accept
a buffer position that is just a number as its first arg.  IOW, give
`set-marker' this behavior:

(defun new-set-marker (num-or-marker position &optional buffer)
  "..."
  (unless (markerp num-or-marker)
    (setq num-or-marker  (with-current-buffer buffer
                           (copy-marker num-or-marker))))
  (set-marker num-or-marker position buffer))


In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2015-07-03 on LEG570
Bzr revision: 2b848fadd51e805b2f46da64c5958ea7f009048a
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --enable-checking=yes,glyphs'

bug#21195: 25.0.50; Let MARKER arg to `set-marker' be a number

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> Minor enhancement request.  Let `set-marker' (aka `move-marker') accept
> a buffer position that is just a number as its first arg.  IOW, give
> `set-marker' this behavior:
>
> (defun new-set-marker (num-or-marker position &optional buffer)
>   "..."
>   (unless (markerp num-or-marker)
>     (setq num-or-marker  (with-current-buffer buffer
>                            (copy-marker num-or-marker))))
>   (set-marker num-or-marker position buffer))

Hm...  Well, I don't really see the point.  `set-marker' is so
conceptually clean.  And saying `(set-marker (make-marker) ...)' is so
easy.  Closing.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#21195: 25.0.50; Let MARKER arg to `set-marker' be a number

[Drew Adams]

> > Minor enhancement request.  Let `set-marker' (aka `move-marker') accept
> > a buffer position that is just a number as its first arg.  IOW, give
> > `set-marker' this behavior:
> >
> > (defun new-set-marker (num-or-marker position &optional buffer)
> >   "..."
> >   (unless (markerp num-or-marker)
> >     (setq num-or-marker  (with-current-buffer buffer
> >                            (copy-marker num-or-marker))))
> >   (set-marker num-or-marker position buffer))
> 
> Hm...  Well, I don't really see the point.  `set-marker' is so
> conceptually clean.  And saying `(set-marker (make-marker) ...)' is so
> easy.  Closing.

Well, I said it was minor.  Consider funcalling, applying, or
mapping over positions, which can be markers.

Sure, you can use an anonymous function that does just what
you need (test with markerp, copy-marker if not a marker)...
But why shouldn't `set-marker' do this?  It's trivial and
costs only a call to `markerp' for doing what `set-marker'
does now.