[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun]
From: |
Andreas Roehler |
Subject: |
Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun] |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:27:42 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) |
Richard Stallman schrieb:
What was sent indeed was a `beginning-of-defun' in his
true understanding (as I conceive that) - nothing more.
In Emacs we have used the term "defun" to mean "top level expression"
for 30 years. There is no reason to change that.
So the question I am considering what kind of behavior a user editing
Emacs Lisp code might find more useful than the current C-M-a
behavior.
Heading for consensus:
In the most cases C-M-a DTRT. Just stumbled over the
question while looking for a utility to pick Emacs-Lisp
function-definitions for my general-purpose collection.
Probably the most convenient would be, to let C-M-a
basically as it is, just have a fork with C-u to get
the restriction onto `true defuns':) only.
This could be done by setting defun-prompt-regexp then.
Would be the most conservative, yet still helpful
proceeding.
Remain features of in-string-check and return-value.
Wrote meanwhile
(defun if-in-string-p ()
"Check if point is inside a string.
Returns the ascii value of the char bordering such string.
Function doesn't rely on `beginning-of-defun' as it's designed to be
inside that function.
`if-in-string-p' scanns from the beginning of buffer, this might be slow.
Try `in-string-p' from thingatpt.el for alternative then."
(interactive)
(progn (message "%s" (nth 3 (parse-partial-sexp 1 (point))))
(nth 3 (parse-partial-sexp 1 (point)))))
Return-value once was value of point, as I need it. This
was changed to `t' long ago. Couldn't find the changing
in the RCS. Does someone know the reasons?
__
Andreas Roehler
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], (continued)
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Andreas Roehler, 2006/07/10
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2006/07/10
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Andreas Roehler, 2006/07/10
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Andreas Roehler, 2006/07/14
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Richard Stallman, 2006/07/16
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Andreas Roehler, 2006/07/16
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Richard Stallman, 2006/07/17
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Andreas Roehler, 2006/07/17
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2006/07/17
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun], Richard Stallman, 2006/07/17
- Re: [Fwd: Re: beginning-of-defun],
Andreas Roehler <=