[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#21072: 24.5; inconsistent behaviour of `C-M-h (mark-defun)' in Emacs
From: |
Marcin Borkowski |
Subject: |
bug#21072: 24.5; inconsistent behaviour of `C-M-h (mark-defun)' in Emacs Lisp |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:07:23 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 25.1.50.3 |
On 2016-06-21, at 11:05, Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> wrote:
> On 21.06.2016 09:58, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>> On 2016-06-09, at 13:56, Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> 2b. Write a few tests for `mark-defun',_then_ fix the problem, and check
>>> whether these tests pass. Of course, all these tests would be for Elisp
>>> (and maybe for C and/or JavaScript).
>> Hi all,
>>
>> it seems nobody cared enough to answer my question, so I made the choice
>> of doing the Right Thing™, and started from developing some tests for
>> mark-defun. Here's what I've got now.
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> ;;; elisp-mode-tests.el --- Tests for emacs-lisp-mode -*- lexical-binding:
>> t; -*-
>>
>> ;; Copyright (C) 2015-2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>
>> ;; Author: Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>
>> ;; Author: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
>> ;; Author: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@member.fsf.org>
>>
>> ;; This file is part of GNU Emacs.
>>
>> ;; GNU Emacs is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> ;; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> ;; the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>> ;; (at your option) any later version.
>>
>> ;; GNU Emacs is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> ;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> ;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>> ;; GNU General Public License for more details.
>>
>> ;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>> ;; along with GNU Emacs. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>>
>> ;;; Code:
>>
>> (require 'ert)
>>
>>
>> ;;; Helpers
>>
>> ;; Copied and modified from `python-tests-with-temp-buffer'
>> (defmacro elisp-tests-with-temp-buffer (contents &rest body)
>> "Create a `emacs-lisp-mode' enabled temp buffer with CONTENTS.
>> BODY is code to be executed within the temp buffer. Point is
>> always located at the beginning of buffer."
>> (declare (indent 1) (debug t))
>> `(with-temp-buffer
>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>> (insert ,contents)
>> (goto-char (point-min))
>> ,@body))
>>
>> (defmacro conditional-save-excursion (arg &rest body)
>> "Wrap BODY in `save-excursion', but only if ARG is non-nil."
>> (declare (indent 1) (debug t))
>> `(if ,arg
>> (save-excursion ,@body)
>> ,@body))
>>
>> (defun look-at (string &optional count restore-point)
>> "Move the point to the beginning of STRING in current buffer.
>> Return the new point value. If COUNT is non-nil, move to COUNTth
>> occurrence. If RESTORE-POINT is non-nil, return the found
>> position, but do not move point."
>> (conditional-save-excursion restore-point
>> (setq count (or count 1))
>> (when (search-forward string nil t count)
>> (goto-char (match-beginning 0)))
>> (point)))
>>
>>
>> ;;; Mark
>>
>> (ert-deftest mark-defun-1 ()
>> "Test `mark-defun' with point inside the defun."
>> (elisp-tests-with-temp-buffer
>> "
>> \(defun func-a ()
>> \"A parameterless function.\"
>> (ignore))
>>
>> ;; A comment right before a defun.
>> \(defun func-b (argument)
>> \"A function with one ARGUMENT.\"
>> (ignore argument)
>> (message \"%s\" \"Argument ignored.\"))
>>
>> \(defmacro macro-a (&rest body)
>> \"A macro with BODY.\"
>> `(,@body))
>> "
>> (let ((expected-mark-beginning-position-1-2
>> (progn
>> (look-at "(defun func-a ")
>> (previous-line 1)
>> (point)))
>> (expected-mark-end-position-1
>> (save-excursion
>> (look-at "(ignore))")
>> (next-line 1)
>> (point)))
>> (expected-mark-end-position-2
>> (save-excursion
>> (point)
>> (look-at "\"))")
>> (next-line 1)
>> (point)))
>> (expected-mark-beginning-position-3
>> (progn
>> (look-at "(defmacro macro-a ")
>> (previous-line 1)
>> (point)))
>> (expected-mark-end-position-3
>> (progn
>> (look-at "(,@body)")
>> (next-line 1)
>> (point))))
>> ;; select the first defun
>> (goto-char (point-min))
>> (look-at "A parameterless function.")
>> (mark-defun)
>> (should (= (point) expected-mark-beginning-position-1-2))
>> (should (= (marker-position (mark-marker))
>> expected-mark-end-position-1))
>> ;; expand to the second defun
>> (mark-defun 1)
>> (should (= (point) expected-mark-beginning-position-1-2))
>> (should (= (marker-position (mark-marker))
>> expected-mark-end-position-2))
>> ;; select the macro
>> (look-at "A macro")
>> (mark-defun)
>> (should (= (point) expected-mark-beginning-position-3))
>> (should (= (marker-position (mark-marker))
>> expected-mark-end-position-3)))))
>>
>> (ert-deftest mark-defun-2 ()
>> "Test `mark-defun' with point between defuns."
>> (elisp-tests-with-temp-buffer
>> "
>> \(defun func-a ()
>> \"A parameterless function.\"
>> (ignore))
>>
>> ;; A comment right before a defun.
>> \(defun func-b (argument)
>> \"A function with one ARGUMENT.\"
>> (ignore argument)
>> (message \"%s\" \"Argument ignored.\"))
>>
>> \(defmacro macro-a (&rest body)
>> \"A macro with BODY.\"
>> `(,@body))
>> "
>> (let ((expected-mark-beginning-position-1
>> (progn
>> (look-at "(defun func-b ")
>> (point)))
>> (expected-mark-end-position-1
>> (save-excursion
>> (look-at "ignored.\"))")
>> (next-line 1)
>> (point))))
>> ;; select the first defun
>> (goto-char expected-mark-end-position-1)
>> (previous-line 1)
>> (mark-defun)
>> (should (= (point) expected-mark-beginning-position-1))
>> (should (= (marker-position (mark-marker))
>> expected-mark-end-position-1)))))
>>
>> (provide 'elisp-mode-tests)
>> ;;; elisp-mode-tests.el ends here
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> These two tests pass now. The next thing would be to change them to
>> what /should/ pass. Before that, though, let me ask: what are your
>> opinion on these simple tests? Are they enough? Would you add
>> something?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>
> Hi Marcin,
>
> should no one else respond for now: please come back after release.
> AFAIU the current implemention of beginning-of-defun prevents a
> consistent setup of related commands. A change here would include resp.
> require a major change...
OK, I see.
> Don't give up :)
I don't, I'm patient - I'm also working very slowly on this...
> Andreas
Thanks, best
--
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University