[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool)
From: |
Marcin Borkowski |
Subject: |
bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool) |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:24:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 26.0.50 |
On 2017-04-19, at 02:04, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>
>>> Oh, right, I thought it was doing backward-comment, but the difference
>>> is that it stops at blank lines, thus the *non-redundant* looking-at
>>> call.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that's a sensible thing to do for languages that have
>>> multiline comments though, e.g. Javascript:
>>>
>>> /*
>>>
>>> This function returns 0
>>>
>>> */
>>> function foo () {
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Although we might say that such comments should have "*" on the empty lines.
>>
>> Definitely. OTOH, what if they don't...? I'm not sure how to detect
>> such a situation. Any ideas?
>
> (defun beginning-of-defun-comments (&optional arg)
> "Move to the beginning of ARGth defun, including comments."
> (interactive "^p")
> (unless arg (setq arg 1))
> (beginning-of-defun arg)
> (while (let ((pt (prog1 (point) (forward-line -1)))
> (ppss (syntax-ppss)))
> (cond ((nth 4 ppss) (goto-char (nth 8 ppss)))
> ((and (parse-partial-sexp
> (point) (line-end-position) nil t ppss)
> (not (bolp)) (eolp)))
> (t (goto-char pt) nil)))))
Still not there - I tried first on Elisp, like this:
;; A comment
(defun ...)
and it left the point at the end of the "A comment" line instead of at
the beginning...
> However there will always be some comment style that doesn't work, e.g.
>
> // Some description followed by a blank.
>
> function name(arg) {
>
> }
>
> Another option is to give up the comment marking, it seems a bit
> complicated to implement and explain to users.
I'm tempted to leave it is it is in my branch. For one, I'm a bit tired
by all this and I'd like to move on; also, as you said above, there is
little hope to do it "100% correctly", and I guess my solution may be
good enough. (I'm pretty sure it's better than the status quo, at
least.)
I wouldn't like to resign from marking comments; I think it is pretty
useful.
So I'm going to delete the branch with the wrong name and push another
one, with the fixes we discussed earlier.
Best,
--
Marcin Borkowski
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), (continued)
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), npostavs, 2017/04/02
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Marcin Borkowski, 2017/04/07
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), npostavs, 2017/04/18
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), John Mastro, 2017/04/18
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), John Mastro, 2017/04/19
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Marcin Borkowski, 2017/04/20
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool),
Marcin Borkowski <=
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Marcin Borkowski, 2017/04/21
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), npostavs, 2017/04/22
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Marcin Borkowski, 2017/04/24
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), npostavs, 2017/04/24
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Marcin Borkowski, 2017/04/25
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), npostavs, 2017/04/25
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Noam Postavsky, 2017/04/25
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Marcin Borkowski, 2017/04/27
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Noam Postavsky, 2017/04/27
- bug#21072: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool), Marcin Borkowski, 2017/04/30