And a forgotten attachment. On 2016-06-05, at 08:30, Marcin Borkowski wrote: > On 2016-05-07, at 08:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>> From: Marcin Borkowski >>> Cc: rfflrccrd@gmail.com, 21072@debbugs.gnu.org >>> Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 05:47:18 +0200 >>> >>> I'm not sure what to do next with this bug. I tried with the >>> abovementioned short Elisp file and failed. Since no-one said that the >>> current behavior is wrong, maybe I'll try to study the code of >>> `mark-defun' and modify the docstring/manual accordingly. >> >> I'd suggest to change the doc string according to what I recommended a >> few messages ago. I think that would be good enough. > > Hi Eli, hi all, > > and sorry for replying after such a long time (again) - I'm afraid > I cannot help this, my time has become extremely limited recently. > > I studied the code of mark-defun, and it seems that the reason for > #21072 is quite simple. I enclose a patch where the two (seemingly) > offending lines are commented; if this is acceptable, of course I'll > prepare a proper patch. (And while at that, I'll propose replacing > `(and transient-mark-mode mark-active)' with `(use-region-p)'.) > > The problem is, I'm not sure whether this change won't break anything. > The only tests I found that deal with `mark-defun' are in > python-tests.el, and my version passes all three of them. > >> Thanks. > > Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University