|
From: | Andreas Röhler |
Subject: | Re: Python interactive navigation around nested functions |
Date: | Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:23:07 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0 |
On 20.06.2016 15:57, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
On 2016-06-20 04:28, Andreas Röhler wrote:On 20.06.2016 09:34, Stefan Monnier wrote:So both python-modes behave identically in this respect. That would not be surprising if the behavior you don't like is the one usually considered as right.Start and end of a functions definition is not about like or don't like. Also not about "usually considered".I don't understand your aggressiveness,
Wherefrom do you derive any? The "you don't like" was introduced by Stefan, not me.
nor your point. Stefan is just pointing out that C-M-a doesn't usually go to the beginning of the enclosing function definition
In any case it's not about enclosing, which would be reached by up-list related stuff, it's about start of current.
(and the docs don't claim that it does, either): (beginning-of-defun &optional ARG)Move backward to the beginning of a defun.
What means "a" defun? User may expect the beginning of definition of code at point. Which is not the case in current python.el, but fixed in python-mode.el meanwhile.
(...) With ARG, do it that many times. Negative ARG means move forward to the ARGth following beginning of defun. I agree with the OP that it would be very nice to have a way to go back to the beginning of the "current" defun (some sort of super C-M-u).
C-M-u would match the enclosing - python-mode.el delivers py-up. But that is not at stake here.
But I don't understand the vitriol.
No idea what you mean.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |