From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confusing doc string of list-or-string at point Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:56:25 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83a6k3uspt.fsf@gnu.org> <87sfxv2p4e.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <835yururh3.fsf@gnu.org> <8335pvuqfh.fsf@gnu.org> <87tuibyxzd.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83y27nt9ny.fsf@gnu.org> <87czoz3wm2.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <875yuqpjpp.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87o88ga357.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32080"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 27 19:02:23 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mUu1H-00088g-Dz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 19:02:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49088 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mUu1F-0001Zx-HE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:02:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mUtwH-0004BU-H4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:57:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:38743) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mUtwD-0006Zg-AR; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:57:10 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F1050806A7; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 999368064E; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:57:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1632761823; bh=8P/AFFa91YoGs9rDyp+62Gj0rXMuoQ6fIv666bXQYJw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=DROe5jaZAGsIBst7kP7wk6kiWqS5dLcgVYp+gHn7bgkDvDOUVKzrDAyjIN0KSgUOB +yEQIKqbPDK80l+Vz/G+1WUimT4iqmIlDGVoiq1wt490TFViRGOAdoNYTnnWzyY4VW 8JOGuoDREFDVhc/a/vbtYf8JQ4lswpS16oQQXVmxGhChE0eiJjsq/jamUP2FIEV+nD YTOvC8pFvowi7JmLFEO08p6BbQf8ZC1eQiKz0khFlLfp97zrSbMD96yLHQaURggrH0 zG+TFUHZrKqRUUAyd7bsAWgn2ZdKx+uqmw6LFwbdEokscFIhIpY1/4NF8QI24LPd/s JNAXPpzo7qSjA== Original-Received: from alfajor (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77F63120254; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:57:03 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87o88ga357.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (Juri Linkov's message of "Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:03:48 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:275597 Archived-At: >> Splitting the work between `char-after` and `char-syntax` means that we >> can't obey any `syntax-table` text properties placed on that char. >> So I think the above change would be a regression in this sense (tho >> I understand it fixes or circumvents a bug elsewhere). > > No bugs prompted this patch, just noticed the difference between > this function and its counterpart thing-at-point--beginning-of-sexp > that uses `(char-syntax (char-before))`. My point was just that `syntax-after` is almost always the better choice over (char-syntax (char-after)) because it has access to more information, so the better fix to unify the two would be to use `syntax-after` in both cases ;-) Stefan