Re: beginning-of-defun (again)

["John Wiegley" <johnw@newartisans.com>]

>>>>> Oleh Krehel <ohwoeowho@gmail.com> writes:

> If they are within macros, they're data and not defuns in my mind. For me, a
> defun is a top-level expression with "(" at column 0. It doesn't even need
> to define something callable (like `defun' or `defmacro'), so a `defcustom'
> statement is a defun for purposes of `beginning-of-defun'.

I realize you think this, Oleh; what I'm saying is that not everyone does.

As I mentioned, I'm fine with using column 0 as a heuristic. However, there
are use cases where it is confusing (I *still* hit C-M-x on nested defun's,
and find myself surprised that it does something else; and this despite
knowing the nature of the beast full well, and after many years of experience
of it not working).

Some people see "defun" and think this establishes a sort of syntactic entity
with regard to Emacs commands relating to defuns. What we're talking about is
a technical distinction that makes life easier for us -- and not about users
who find it confusing.

Since the decision is to go with the status quo, is there anything to discuss?

John