[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun
From: |
Andreas Roehler |
Subject: |
Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun |
Date: |
Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:26:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) |
...
> any argument. So your code wouldn't be acceptable as is since it would
> likely break several packages.
>
...
Hi Stefan,
reflecting this question a little bit further:
as expressive settings of `push-mark' are removed, some functions
while rely upon and fail then.
However, `push-mark' is a very basic and considerable
editing command. If a function needs it, it should implement it at place.
Suggest keeping things apart: move functions should
move, not deliver a hair-cut. :)
If more is needed, another function should take over than.
All-at-once essays create complexity and never ending
bugs finally.
So far, think simplifying is worthwhile on the longer run.
Andreas
--
https://code.launchpad.net/s-x-emacs-werkstatt/
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~a-roehler/python-mode/python-mode.el/
- simplifying beginning-of-defun, Andreas Roehler, 2009/09/26
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Stefan Monnier, 2009/09/26
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Andreas Roehler, 2009/09/27
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Stefan Monnier, 2009/09/27
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Andreas Roehler, 2009/09/28
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Stefan Monnier, 2009/09/28
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Andreas Roehler, 2009/09/29
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Andreas Roehler, 2009/09/29
Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun,
Andreas Roehler <=
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/09/27
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Stefan Monnier, 2009/09/27
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/09/27
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Stefan Monnier, 2009/09/27
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/09/27
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Stefan Monnier, 2009/09/28
- Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/09/28
Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/09/29
Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun, Glenn Morris, 2009/09/27