Re: (bounds-of-thing-at-point 'number) ⇒ nil

[Emanuel Berg]

tomas wrote:

> Note that number isn't among the things mentioned in the
> function doc of `bounds-of-thing-at-point'. It is, however
> in that of `thing-at-point'.

Bug. It doesn't exist - but it should - so it returns nil ...

This is what happens when/if you manually have to give data
that are the same same, twice. Only input it once, then add 2
or as many references are called for to that data ...

> So the behaviour you describe is surprising, but it is
> documented :)

Anyway the docstring also says:

  See the file ‘thingatpt.el’ for documentation on how to
  define a valid THING.

But that isn't even a clickable button.

It should be called `thing-at-point' BTW. That looks like
something out of C or Python.

> Perhaps both functions might want to get reconciled with
> each others. But perhaps there is a deeper reason their
> "things" lists differ.

*thumbs-down*

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal