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

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Drew Adams writes:

 > 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.).

Well, when I say "confusing" I have in mind situations where the let
binding shadows something global.  Not that a big deal but like Stefan
I'm not a fan of making these functions too smart.

I also don't reevaluate deffaces very often; if I'm going to change a
face, I generally do it in customize (specifically for reset-to-default
which is what I would be most likely to use the facility for) or
through direct set-face-* calls.  When I'm done fiddling, it's no big
deal to change the defface itself.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with changing the defface,
whatever works for you is fine.  Just that from my point of view it's
probably a YAGNI for most people, so why make it so smart?  Of course
you can argue that the other way (ie, "well, so why not?!"), but I
suspect that won't get past Stefan's mild opposition.