Re: map-extents and narrowed buffer

Kyle Jones <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

OK.  Then at least the docstring and the Info documentation of
map-extents should mention that map-extents ignores narrowing and
that, to respect it, you have to explicitly use (point-min) and
(point-max) as endpoints.

That should decrease the possibility of the nasty surprise.