[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Don't move to eol in end-of-defun?

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Don't move to eol in end-of-defun?
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 23:41:39 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > We have nested defuns here.

A "defun" in Emacs is not the same thing as a function definition
(or class definition).

    class C {
      void foo() {

has two nested definitions, but only the outermost one counts as a
defun in Emacs parlance.

A defun is a construct which is top-level, or appears locally to be.
In Lisp that usually means an open-paren in column 0.  In some other
languages, there are other ways to find defuns.

  > I just want to make movement to eol conditional, with default value
  > meaning "like before", to not break anything.

Doing it that way might be ok.  At any rate, no disaster.  But it
leaves the question, should we really try to support nested defuns?
It is a can of worms.

Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

reply via email to

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