Re: map-extents and narrowed buffer

Hrvoje Niksic writes:
 >   ;; [1] Should map in [30, 60) because narrowing is in effect.
 >   ;; Currently maps in [1, 100).
 >   (map-extents function nil nil nil)
 > [...]
 > I seriously doubt that there's any code that actually depends on the
 > current behavior of #1.

It seems wrong to me for the map-extents to honor the clipping
region for this case and not honor it in the other cases.
Consistency.  In my own code I already call map-extents with
(point-min)/(point-max) start/end values to get the clipping
region honored, so I must have figured it out sometime in the
past.