> From: Drew Adams <drew.ad...@oracle.com> > CC: "e...@gnu.org" <e...@gnu.org>, > "emacs-de...@gnu.org" > <emacs-de...@gnu.org>, > "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 01:52:13 +0000 > > I hear you. The behavior should be changed so > that, in general, bounds-of-thing-at-point etc. > return nil when there is _no thing at point_, > including when point is after, including just > after, a thing but not on such a thing. > > There can be commands (and noncommand fns) that > return things _near_ point, not only at point. > And "near" can be configurable with an argument. > > In particular, they can do what the vanilla fns > currently do: return a thing at OR just before > point. But the "-at-point" functions shouldn't > do that. They should do what their names say.
I disagree. These functions are nowadays the basis of many interactive features, and users are usually mightily confused by the fine print of what "at point" means technically in Emacs. The current operation is much easier for users to grasp mentally by observing the position of the cursor, whether it's on or just after the "thing". > It's not hard for Emacs to still DTRT. It just > takes a decision and admission that the behavior > was misguided and unnecessarily limiting (BIG > time). We made the decision. It just is not what you think it should be, because our considerations are different from yours.
