Re: thing-at-point: inconsistent behaviour?

[Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>]

In article <mailman.7128.1345164390.855.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
 "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> > When you are looking for a buffer substring, you call
> > `bounds-of-thing-at-point'; when you are looking for a string
> > result, you call `thing-at-point'; when you want the result
> > as a sexp, you call the specialized function.
> 
> There is even another complication/confusion.  "Symbol" in Emacs can refer to
> two different things, especially as regards text that might represent a name.
> 
> * It can refer to a string of chars that have symbol syntax (or 
> symbol-or-word
> syntax) in a given mode - any mode, not just Lisp.
> 
> * It can refer to a Lisp symbol, i.e., a specific kind of Lisp object (with 
> the
> possibility of a non-nil `symbol-value' and `symbol-function, for instance).
> 
> IMO, most Elisp programs use thing-at-point functions to grab a string
> representing the name of something or representing a sexp or other object 
> (URL,
> file name, etc.).
> 
> In the case of a symbol, IMO most programs really want/need to grab a symbol
> _name_, often for use as the default value in an interactive spec.  Most do 
> not
> really want/need a Lisp symbol.  And even when they do, they can call 
> `intern'
> or `intern-soft' or `make-symbol' themselves.

Then they should call (thing-at-point 'symbol), not (symbol-at-point).  
It seems like this tangent is because someone thought that the latter 
should just be a shorthand for the former, but they do different things 
and are intended for different situations.  If symbol-at-point doesn't 
do what you want (e.g. it interns things when you would prefer it 
didn't), don't use it. No one's forcing you to.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***