From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#21072: 24.5; inconsistent behaviour of `C-M-h (mark-defun)' in Emacs Lisp Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 22:56:02 +0300 Message-ID: <83fuu1mu25.fsf@gnu.org> References: <55A74B3C.8030608@gmail.com> <87k2jm2bay.fsf@amu.edu.pl> <83r3dln1ez.fsf@gnu.org> <87y47tzn0v.fsf@mbork.pl> <83lh3tmyzv.fsf@gnu.org> <87twihzhni.fsf@mbork.pl> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1462132662 6818 80.91.229.3 (1 May 2016 19:57:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:57:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rfflrccrd@gmail.com, 21072@debbugs.gnu.org To: Marcin Borkowski Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 01 21:57:30 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1awxUg-0004H0-5v for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 21:57:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34148 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awxUc-0008Or-Hn for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:57:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37229) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awxUT-0008D8-8w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:57:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awxUH-0002Pp-Kq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:57:11 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48687) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awxUH-0002OM-I7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:57:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awxUE-0006tT-5y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:57:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 19:57:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 21072 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 21072-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B21072.146213258426456 (code B ref 21072); Sun, 01 May 2016 19:57:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 21072) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 May 2016 19:56:24 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32791 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awxTc-0006se-1l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:56:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46113) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awxTa-0006sQ-Db for 21072@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:56:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awxTL-0002Gc-VI for 21072@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:56:14 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58901) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awxTL-0002Fh-Rr; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:56:07 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2869 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1awxTF-0006Ra-F6; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:56:02 -0400 In-reply-to: <87twihzhni.fsf@mbork.pl> (message from Marcin Borkowski on Sun, 01 May 2016 21:45:37 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:117540 Archived-At: > From: Marcin Borkowski > Cc: rfflrccrd@gmail.com, 21072@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 21:45:37 +0200 > > > So if we say "either precedes or follows point" instead of "follows > > point", all will be well? > > Formally, yes. Though I guess it would be a bit better to fix the > commands so that it's behavior matches the docs. Why do you think that? Why is it better to always mark the function that follows point? Me, I think that the current behavior is a kind of feature, since it lets the user control whether the leading commentary before a function will or won't be marked.