Possible emacs bug.

Possible emacs bug.

[Charlie]

I have discovered a "feature" but I strongly suspect I am not the first.
Using emacs 21.2.1 on win32 and the version with debian woody in lisp-mode
the lisp-eval-defun (M-C-x) does not eval the defun if the indenetation is
incorrect. example:

(defun badly-indented ()
(+ 2 3))
=> 5

(defun correctly-indented ()
    (+ 2 3))
=> correctly-indented

This works in a number of inferior lisps like clisp and cmucl and in both
normal lisp mode and ilisp.
How can I find out if this has been reported and if not report it?

Cheers
Charlie.

Re: Possible emacs bug.

[Edric M Ellis]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, charlieb@zoom.co.uk wrote:
> I have discovered a "feature" but I strongly suspect I am not the
> first. Using emacs 21.2.1 on win32 and the version with debian woody
> in lisp-mode the lisp-eval-defun (M-C-x) does not eval the defun if
> the indenetation is incorrect. [...]

This seems to be because of the way ``beginning-of-defun'' works. It's
looking for a "(" at the start of a line. If you want to force it to
look for "(defun" at the beginning of a line, you could do this:

(setq beginning-of-defun-function (lambda nil 
                                    (re-search-backward "^(defun")))

Cheers,

Edric.

-- 
Edric M Ellis
The MathWorks, Ltd., Matrix House, Cowley Park, Cambridge CB4 0HH, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1223 423 200    Ext: 218
Fax: +44 (0) 1223 423 255

Re: Possible emacs bug.

[Charlie]

That was easy but I couldn't have figured it out.
Thank-you.


"Edric M Ellis" <eellis@mathworks.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ubs4k8jge.fsf@eellis.mathworks.co.uk...

> This seems to be because of the way ``beginning-of-defun'' works. It's
> looking for a "(" at the start of a line. If you want to force it to
> look for "(defun" at the beginning of a line, you could do this:
>
> (setq beginning-of-defun-function (lambda nil
>                                     (re-search-backward "^(defun")))

RE: Possible emacs bug.

[Bingham, Jay]

This "feature" is present in emacs 20.4 running under Unix as well.

-_
J_)
C_)ingham
.    HP - NonStop Austin Software & Services - Software Quality Assurance
.    Austin, TX
. Language is the apparel in which your thoughts parade in public.
. Never clothe them in vulgar and shoddy attire.          -Dr. George W. Crane-

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Charlie [mailto:charlieb@zoom.co.uk] 
Sent:	Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:19 AM
To:	help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Subject:	Possible emacs bug.

I have discovered a "feature" but I strongly suspect I am not the first.
Using emacs 21.2.1 on win32 and the version with debian woody in lisp-mode
the lisp-eval-defun (M-C-x) does not eval the defun if the indenetation is
incorrect. example:

(defun badly-indented ()
(+ 2 3))
=> 5

(defun correctly-indented ()
    (+ 2 3))
=> correctly-indented

This works in a number of inferior lisps like clisp and cmucl and in both
normal lisp mode and ilisp.
How can I find out if this has been reported and if not report it?

Cheers
Charlie.


_______________________________________________
Help-gnu-emacs mailing list
Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs

Re: Possible emacs bug.

[Kai Großjohann]

Edric M Ellis <eellis@mathworks.co.uk> writes:

> This seems to be because of the way ``beginning-of-defun'' works.

Whee.  I think it's fine that beginning-of-defun takes some shortcuts
for indentation and movement, but maybe C-M-x should produce a more
correct result?  OTOH, then it might take very long for C-M-x to do
its thing.

kai
-- 
~/.signature is: umop ap!sdn    (Frank Nobis)

Re: Possible emacs bug.

[Barry Margolin]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 829 bytes --]

In article <84k7j4au5k.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>,
Kai Großjohann <kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
>Edric M Ellis <eellis@mathworks.co.uk> writes:
>
>> This seems to be because of the way ``beginning-of-defun'' works.
>
>Whee.  I think it's fine that beginning-of-defun takes some shortcuts
>for indentation and movement, but maybe C-M-x should produce a more
>correct result?  OTOH, then it might take very long for C-M-x to do
>its thing.

All the commands that operate on on a "defun" use the same definition of
what a function definition is.  This is good for consistency, and also for
performance.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.