From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "John Wiegley" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: beginning-of-defun (again) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:17:26 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <56320200.4050503@online.de> <87twp951ug.fsf@gmail.com> <87twp8wvop.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1446229063 2081 80.91.229.3 (30 Oct 2015 18:17:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:17:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: andreas.roehler@online.de, Richard Stallman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Oleh Krehel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 30 19:17:42 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1ZsEFB-0004o8-Pw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:17:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52337 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZsEFA-0003hc-Vl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:17:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40338) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZsEF6-0003hW-DK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:17:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZsEF1-0007UY-C6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:17:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]:36061) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZsEF1-0007UU-6t; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:17:31 -0400 Original-Received: by pacfv9 with SMTP id fv9so84416059pac.3; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:17:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=56gWaONreJNIKTObYgT8U4rcVWAHdeh0gQoaFW/+tyE=; b=aGEH5yLOOlbpGCdKYOBauWUR9G+FmEWVgaH2Fsw+aUnpxBLtx71h0Pebae+/WXoV6Y KWZQD6dxj/MWMR1FsxS44l0aGYGnZ/OAOtPffVje9aS9RZyFEwOGmqcRcralYgKiy2mh +Ay4stDFfkkoLfugglkRKPTANTcKPryxiBhHQq8aRkcTom/CBQbiKtw0+1BJB13VMS4g cKP0Bu+VN1xT3ZAijh+MJsmvoJ6eAXxnLVHaXut4xo8KELLTmbIOQcGcTB8rdq+TQb9+ I1nsfg6MOpjnzsU7dftJPNuNAz51fMf4e3VMYjXuKAIN3ptILVDdp5AaRLn3/pFiooY4 sGGA== X-Received: by 10.68.57.208 with SMTP id k16mr10429063pbq.12.1446229050323; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.attlocal.net (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fl5sm9400988pbd.70.2015.10.30.11.17.28 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.attlocal.net (Postfix, from userid 501) id 075FE100B99E5; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:17:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87twp8wvop.fsf@gmail.com> (Oleh Krehel's message of "Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:29:58 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: Oleh Krehel , Richard Stallman , andreas.roehler@online.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:192983 Archived-At: >>>>> Oleh Krehel 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