beginning-of-defun / end-of-defun mark set message

beginning-of-defun / end-of-defun mark set message

[drain]

What's the point in leaving the second arg to push-mark nil (i.e., NOMSG)?

I ended up disabling it (push-mark () t) in mods of these two functions, but
before I embrace the change, I'd like to know the thinking behind leaving
the message in, in the case of these two functions. It makes sense
elsewhere, particularly when the user is calling push-mark directly
(C-space), and it's not embedded into a larger function body.



--
View this message in context: http://emacs.1067599.n5.nabble.com/beginning-of-defun-end-of-defun-mark-set-message-tp262026.html
Sent from the Emacs - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: beginning-of-defun / end-of-defun mark set message

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.7381.1345604968.855.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
 drain <aeuster@gmail.com> wrote:

> What's the point in leaving the second arg to push-mark nil (i.e., NOMSG)?
> 
> I ended up disabling it (push-mark () t) in mods of these two functions, but
> before I embrace the change, I'd like to know the thinking behind leaving
> the message in, in the case of these two functions. It makes sense
> elsewhere, particularly when the user is calling push-mark directly
> (C-space), and it's not embedded into a larger function body.

In general, commands that set the mark should display a message, 
especially if this isn't the command's primary purpose.  It's the same 
reason that beginning/end-of-buffer display the message.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***