bug#38051: 26.3; (elisp) `Insertion' use of verb "point"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#38051: 26.3; (elisp) `Insertion' use of verb "point"

Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:56:29 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>
> > > 1. From a user point of view (conceptual model),
> > >    markers _are_ objects that can be located
> > >    _in_ a buffer, _at_ buffer positions.
> >
> > That is incorrect.  A marker stores a buffer and a location within
> > that buffer, but it isn't itself located in a buffer.
>
> From a user point of view.  That's the point.
> That can't be "incorrect".

Of course it can.  And it is.

> It's a question of what the user needs as a
> conceptual model to work with markers (and
> overlays, for that matter).

Wrong conceptual models will bite you down the road.  It is best to
have correct conceptual models.

> > Overlays are completely different beasts.
>
> If you say so (without any explanation of why you
> think so).
>
> Does an overlay store a buffer and two locations
> within that buffer?

No.  Like I said: it's a different beast.

> What is it in the user-observable behavior of a
> marker that requires introducing the extra
> (I'd say extraneous) construct of it "pointing to"
> a buffer and a position within that buffer?

Convenience and clarity of description.

And please, can we stop this bikeshedding?  It goes nowhere.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#38051: 26.3; (elisp) `Insertion' use of verb "point"

Stefan Kangas
tags 38051 + wontfix
close 38051
thanks

Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]> writes:

> > It's a question of what the user needs as a
> > conceptual model to work with markers (and
> > overlays, for that matter).
>
> Wrong conceptual models will bite you down the road.  It is best to
> have correct conceptual models.

I think this is the key here, not least because we are discussing the
Emacs Lisp manual.

I think we can indeed agree to disagree, while the decision seems to
be to not make any changes along the suggested lines.  I'm therefore
closing this bug report.  Thanks.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas