Re: Defuns in comint

[Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>]

On October 3, 2024 4:32:14 PM PDT, Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/3/2024 4:04 PM, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> How would people feel about defining defuns in comint mode as subprocesses outputs? This way, the same navigation keys people already have become more useful in comint mode without breaking anything, because defun navigation in comint is useless today.
>> 
>> If not defuns, then paragraphs? Sentences? I feel like there should be *some* way of using existing sets of movement and marking commands to talk about outputs, and probably inputs.
>
>You might be interested in lisp/eshell/em-prompt.el, which remaps forward/backward-paragraph so that they stop at each empty line *or* prompt.

Sure, but 1) I don't want to stop at paragraph boundaries, and 2) remapping movement commands is less powerful and consistent than changing the definitions of those movements, which is why we have beginning-of-X-function variables.