Re: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> Stefan might be right that it would be difficult to get right - dunno.
> Off the top of my head, however, I'd guess that just going `uplist'
> from point till finding `defface', `defcustom', or `defvar' as the car
> might be good enough.

C-M-x differs from C-x C-e in two aspects:
1- it "guesses" which sexp is meant.
2- it handles defface/defvar/defcustom specially.
IIUC you're only worried about the first partt o the extent that it
prevents you from getting to the second.  I.e. what you're after is
a way to get (2) of C-M-x for sexps where (1) currently fails.

I'm not very much in fa vor of trying to make (1) smarter because it
will make it less uniform.  So we could maybe provide a new command
half-way between C-x C-e and C-M-x, or maybe change (1) so that it uses
the region if active.


        Stefan