bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> It seemed unlikely to me that third party packages would be using
>> ispell-process-line, so I didn't think either was necessary.  If it
>> turns out that it is, I was thinking of adding a new optional argument
>> to the function to alter the return value.
>
> Yes, I'm asking why not do that now, proactively?

Having an optional parameter to a function that has one single usage
didn't seem warranted.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no