Open dvdhansen opened 5 years ago
This is often not the case, eg. python-mode
. But, the beg/end-of-defun functions are buggy
nverno writes:
This is often not the case, eg. python-mode. But, the beg/end-of-defun functions are buggy
Is there some consensus how these function should behave? IMHO C-M-x
should work as expected with function
, macro
, and struct
. But
this could also be fixed in *-eval-defun
.
I agree with you about -*eval-defun
. I don't think there is a general consensus on the beg/end-of-defun functions with respect to nested functions? I just ported python's implementation given the language similarities (although it is obviously buggy, I just haven't been using Julia for a while so haven't been inclined to fix it).
The Emacs manual is quite clear about this:
(emacs) Moving by Defuns
In interactive programming
jupyter-eval-defun
(or whatever method you use) should eval the current top-level construct. This may be a function but could also be a type definition or whatever.*-eval-defun
relies onbeginning-/end-of-defun
.