From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#19217: 25.0.50; `C-M-x' (`eval-defun') on a `defface' that is not top-level Date: 1 Dec 2014 17:02:27 -0000 Organization: muc.de e.V. Message-ID: <20141201170227.11524.qmail@mail.muc.de> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417453404 25754 80.91.229.3 (1 Dec 2014 17:03:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 17:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 19217@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 01 18:03:15 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XvUNW-0003Sk-Kr for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:03:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32821 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvUNW-0000He-8k for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:03:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58988) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvUNP-0000HY-9U for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:03:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvUNK-00044K-FP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:03:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53750) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvUNK-00044F-C6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XvUNJ-0002F0-SO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:03:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Alan Mackenzie Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:03:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19217 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 19217-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19217.14174533538579 (code B ref 19217); Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:03:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 19217) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Dec 2014 17:02:33 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50963 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XvUMr-0002EI-4Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:02:33 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:29303 helo=mail.muc.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XvUMn-0002E8-RB for 19217@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:02:30 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 11525 invoked by uid 3782); 1 Dec 2014 17:02:27 -0000 In-Reply-To: X-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug User-Agent: tin/2.2.0-20131224 ("Lochindaal") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/8.4-RELEASE (amd64)) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:96780 Archived-At: Hello again, Drew. In article you wrote: > The current limitation to top-level is for what reason? For users? For both users and implementors. "The top level construct containing point (or the one following point)" is wonderfully consistent and clear for all concerned. > I'm guessing that the only answer is that this limitation simplifies > the *implementation*, not that it simplifies things for users. > 30 years later, we ought to be able to do a little better (for users). I wasn't really aware of the special handling for `defvar', `defface', etc. in C-M-x until just now. In fact I thought C-M-x and C-x C-e did the same thing. As a suggestion, why not enhance C-x C-e also to handle these defining constructs specially? > I suggested a simple improvement that can be made easily - let users > do it at least when point is on the defface etc. symbol. That's a > limitation, but it at least gives you some way to easily redefine the > critter. It's not rocket science, no, but it is still a bit tricky to do. > The point is that there is currently *no* way for a user to do it. > It's not about making things super general. Just give us some easy > way to do it. Let's not let the search for something ideal become > the enemy of making a simple improvement. Again, I suggest enhancing C-x C-e. > I don't have a patch. I too welcome a simple improvement here. You don't have a patch _yet_. You could write one. I think there's a good chance Stefan would accept it. >> The current way C-M-x handled defvar/defface is hackish and ugly. > I assume you're talking about the implementation and not the way > users interact with Emacs using it. The current user interaction > is simple and useful. Yes, the implementation is ugly. Given how it breaks the rules about not redefining defxxx's, I don't see how it can be other than ugly. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).