[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:29:16 -0800

>  > Why not let `C-M-x' re-evaluate a "defun" (defcustom, defface,
>  > etc.) that is not necessarily at top level?  E.g., with point on,
>  > say, `defface' in this sexp, why shouldn't `C-M-x' redefine the
>  > face?
> I don't see any reason in the `when' you're talking about, but in many
> cases such forms will refer to let-bound variables and the like, and
> the results there could be rather confusing.

I already addressed that:

>> I wouldn't have a problem with `C-M-x' trying to evaluate
>> and redefine it, if that's what the users asked for. That
>> would in some cases raise an error (e.g. embedded `,' or `,@'),

or a variable let-bound outside, or any number of other things that depend on an
outer context...

>> but that's not a problem, IMO.  The user would be in control
>> (it's on demand, the user positions point, etc.).


>> That doesn't mean that all such contexts would necessarily be 
>> valid face or var definitions.  But again, this is interactive
>> and visible.  The user would be in control, asking for it with
>> point where it is etc.  You would get what you ask for. 

We can disagree.  I don't think it would be a problem.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]