Re: Useless change in lisp.el?

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@online.de>]

Am Montag, 26. November 2007 19:14 schrieb Andreas Röhler:
> Am Montag, 26. November 2007 16:09 schrieben Sie:
> > > -The function (of no args) should go to the line on which the current
> > > -defun starts, and return non-nil, or should return nil if it can't
> > > -find the beginning.")
> > > +The function takes the same argument as `beginning-of-defun' and
> > > should +behave similarly, returning non-nil if it found the beginning
> > > of a defun. +Ideally it should move to a point right before an
> > > open-paren which encloses +the body of the defun.")
> > >
> > > As `beginning-of-defun-function' expressivly is
> > > introduced for all possible function definitions, it
> > > makes no sence to require or even to mention an open
> > > paren.
> >
> > Sure it does: end-of-defun does basically
> > "(progn (beginning-of-defun-raw) (forward-sexp)", so if
> > beginning-of-defun-function stops right before an "open paren",
> > end-of-defun will do the right thing.  Otherwise, the programmer will
> > have to supply his own end-of-defun-function.
>
> I read here
>
>   (and (beginning-of-defun-raw arg)
>        (progn (beginning-of-line) t)))
>
No,just see I missed your point in this question.

Anyway, it doesn't change the original case.

Andreas