bug#21072: 24.5; inconsistent behaviour of `C-M-h (mark-defun)' in Emacs Lisp

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2016-10-28, at 16:32, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> Thanks for considering it.  And congratulations on young Borkowski!

Thanks!

On 2016-11-02, at 19:25, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

>> Well, both these behaviors are manifestations of the same bug.
>> Below is the corrected version.  (And below that a question.)
>
> The test cases I mentioned work now.  Thx.  I didn't try anything
> beyond those cases.  Hopefully others will test a bit more.

I would hope so.

> No, not really.  But use your own judgment, I guess.

I guess your version is simpler (no need to use raw prefix arg), and
hence better.

> This is the kind of behavior I had in mind.  This is for
> `transpose-sexps', but it shows the behavior.  _Any_ negative
> arg flips the direction.  At the outset, a negative arg means
> move backward.  The absolute value of ARG is the number of
> sexps to move over.
>
> (defun reversible-transpose-sexps (arg)
>   "Reversible and repeatable `transpose-sexps'.
> Like `transpose-sexps', but:
>  1. Leaves point after the moved sexp.
>  2. When repeated, a negative prefix arg flips the direction."
>   (interactive "p")
>   (when (eq last-command 'rev-transp-sexps-back) (setq arg  (- arg)))
>   (transpose-sexps arg)
>   (unless (natnump arg)
>     (backward-sexp (abs arg))
>     (skip-syntax-backward " .")
>     (setq this-command  'rev-transp-sexps-back)))

Very nice trick with the 'last-command, thanks!  I included this in my
code.  I will also write some tests for that (it seems to work, but...)
and send the code soon.

>> I'm also wondering whether to allow that for
>> non-interactive use, too: I'm pretty sure nobody would want to call
>> (mark-defun '-) from Lisp code, and it might make testing slightly
>> easier.
>
> I think the behavior should be the same.  But see above.  The
> arg passed should be numeric (positive, zero, or negative), IMO.

Again - I agree, this makes coding (though not necessarily testing!)
simpler.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski