Re: Mysterious fontification/C++ context issue

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 > I don't understand this point (and I don't remember the previous mail).
 > What do you think it should say here?

Suppose you have a construct like

(foo

...) (bar ...)

and you invoke `beginning-of-defun' from somewhere after "bar".
`beginning-of-defun-raw' will determine that the "defun" starts at the
open paren preceding "bar" but `beginning-of-defun' may return the
position at line beginning which is inside the parens of "foo".

This was a non-issue with the old `beginning-of-defun' which detected a
defun iff there was an opening paren at column zero.

 >     2. That a user's idea of "defun" for her programming language does not
 >     necessarily coincide with that of `beginning-of-defun'.
 >
 > The major mode is supposed to try to make them correspond.
 > It seems strange to assume that it doesn't succeed.

If it really succeeded why should C mode ever bother to provide its own
`c-beginning-of-defun'?

 >
 >     foo (...)
 >     ...
 >     {
 >     ...
 >     }
 >
 >     will now get you two defuns instead of one.
 >
 > We're still considering how to change the way C mode handles
 > this case, and I don't think that will be true when we are done.

We're still considering how to handle this within `beginning-of-defun',
not necessarily in C mode.

 > Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss what happens in
 > specific modes.

The current change affects the behavior of `beginning-of-defun' which
may affect other modes as well.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV