[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns? |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:23:30 +0900 |
Drew Adams writes:
> Why not let `C-M-x' re-evaluate a "defun" (defcustom, defface,
> etc.) that is not necessarily at top level? E.g., with point on,
> say, `defface' in this sexp, why shouldn't `C-M-x' redefine the
> face?
I don't see any reason in the `when' you're talking about, but in many
cases such forms will refer to let-bound variables and the like, and
the results there could be rather confusing.
- RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, (continued)
- RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Drew Adams, 2012/01/11
- Re: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/01/11
- Re: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Daniel Colascione, 2012/01/11
- Re: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Thierry Volpiatto, 2012/01/12
- RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Drew Adams, 2012/01/12
- Re: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Juri Linkov, 2012/01/12
- RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Drew Adams, 2012/01/12
- RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Drew Adams, 2012/01/12
- RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Drew Adams, 2012/01/12
- Re: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, Dave Abrahams, 2012/01/12
Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=