From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns? Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:29:16 -0800 Message-ID: <1ED66B7B69E8459484ACC575EC977EA1@us.oracle.com> References: <87pqep8pf1.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1326382186 2358 80.91.229.12 (12 Jan 2012 15:29:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:29:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Stephen J. Turnbull'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 12 16:29:42 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RlMax-0000uH-W2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:29:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38094 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RlMax-0004mY-HM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:29:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:53640) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RlMan-0004Ut-BF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:29:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RlMaj-0004T6-6s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:29:29 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:54107) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RlMaj-0004T1-0M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:29:25 -0500 Original-Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id q0CFTNGG000324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:29:23 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0CFTMoa029661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:29:22 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt116.oracle.com (abhmt116.oracle.com [141.146.116.68]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q0CFTLg0010470; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:29:21 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.35.187) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:29:21 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87pqep8pf1.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Thread-Index: AczQ6lQs4qzRJNCLRLqociMHRyvNZQAUIxiw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4F0EFC53.00E0,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.117 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:147613 Archived-At: > > Why not let `C-M-x' re-evaluate a "defun" (defcustom, defface, > > etc.) that is not necessarily at top level? E.g., with point on, > > say, `defface' in this sexp, why shouldn't `C-M-x' redefine the > > face? > > I don't see any reason in the `when' you're talking about, but in many > cases such forms will refer to let-bound variables and the like, and > the results there could be rather confusing. I already addressed that: >> I wouldn't have a problem with `C-M-x' trying to evaluate >> and redefine it, if that's what the users asked for. That >> would in some cases raise an error (e.g. embedded `,' or `,@'), or a variable let-bound outside, or any number of other things that depend on an outer context... >> but that's not a problem, IMO. The user would be in control >> (it's on demand, the user positions point, etc.). and >> That doesn't mean that all such contexts would necessarily be >> valid face or var definitions. But again, this is interactive >> and visible. The user would be in control, asking for it with >> point where it is etc. You would get what you ask for. We can disagree. I don't think it would be a problem.