Re: simplifying beginning-of-defun

[Eric M. Ludlam]

On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 00:06 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 
> > Of course, the need here would be pretty basic stuff too if it was
> > robust to the actual landing place being different for different
> > situations, sort of the way narrow-to-defun might not care exactly where
> > it lands, so long as it goes somewhere.
> 
> Very much so, indeed.
> I'd say that pretty much all calls to beginning-of-defun(-raw) should
> follow this principle.

I think this sums up our difference in opinion.  If this is true, then
none of my previous arguments make sense.  If this is not the case, then
the code that does depend on very specific behaviors from
beginning-of-defun will break if CEDET were to change them.

I'll follow whichever convention you like.

Eric