Re: [PATCH] Handle case where `beg` and `end` are strings instead of markers

[James N . V . Cash]

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>> The other approach, which the below patch implements, is try to find the
>> bounds based on the strings, but if the contents been edited, find the
>> nearest CRM separator. This is kind of nice in that it lets you edit
>> other selections but then still select a candidate, but I don't know how
>> useful/expected that really is. The logic could also be made somewhat
>> more complex (count the number of separators in `start` and `end`, try
>> to guess how many we should skip over in each direction) but I don't
>> know if that's really worthwhile.
>
> I tried out this approach and it works nicely, except the case
> when the CRM separator gets deleted by the user.  But OTOH,
> the user might want to delete the separator intentionally,
> to reduce the number of selections.  So it seems there is no need
> to make the logic more complex.

Should I make a new thread with this patch then, or is the one here okay?