[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns? |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:29:16 -0800 |
> > 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.
I already addressed that:
>> I wouldn't have a problem with `C-M-x' trying to evaluate
>> and redefine it, if that's what the users asked for. That
>> would in some cases raise an error (e.g. embedded `,' or `,@'),
or a variable let-bound outside, or any number of other things that depend on an
outer context...
>> but that's not a problem, IMO. The user would be in control
>> (it's on demand, the user positions point, etc.).
and
>> That doesn't mean that all such contexts would necessarily be
>> valid face or var definitions. But again, this is interactive
>> and visible. The user would be in control, asking for it with
>> point where it is etc. You would get what you ask for.
We can disagree. I don't think it would be a problem.
- Re: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?, (continued)
- 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, 2012/01/12
- RE: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?,
Drew Adams <=