> > 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".
Of course. IF the only use case is (as it's limited to now) trying to get something near point, to use as a _default value for interactive prompt and input_, THEN there's no need for an actual at-point semantics. No need and no advantage. The point (sic) is that there are important, useful _additional_ use cases, not supported by the current ad-hoc semantics. The idea behind Thing At Point is much more general than the single use case that the "many interactive features" you tout boil down to. And no, legitimate at-point semantics doesn't require any complex mental grasping. It's in fact the current behavior that leads to mental gyrations & puzzling, because of the inconsistency that Jim pointed out. The proper semantics is in fact far simpler to "grasp". You're just _used_ to grabbing things that aren't at point, such as a list immediately before point. Habit can make you think things are straightforward & simple. > > 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. We know. It's not too late to fix things, and it's not hard to do. What's lacking is the volition. > It just is not what you think it should be, because > our considerations are different from yours. Exactly. Your considerations are limited to maximizing the possibility of returning a thing near point - more precisely just before point OR AT point (aka just after it). (And as Jim pointed out, even that's not supported consistently.) With those blinders on, your decision makes some sense. Take off the blinders and see there's a whole world surrounding the narrow slice you saw looking only straight ahead.
