Re: Brave new mark-defun (and a testing tool)

[Marcin Borkowski]

Hey, one more thing.

On 2017-02-12, at 11:10, Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 2017-02-12, at 08:09, John Wiegley <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Can you clarify in what ways it is better? Reading through the text you
>> attached did not make it obvious to me...

Here's a fragment from one of Drew's messages from the thread
I mentioned in my previous message.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
What might be better?

1. At least consistency wrt which defun gets selected, when
betweeen defuns.  The doc suggests a general rule (the next
defun), but that is not always respected.

2. Something consistent also wrt a comment before the defun
that will be selected.

3. It could be good for a numeric prefix arg to select that
many defuns.

4. It could be good for a negative prefix arg to select in
the opposite direction.  This is the main improvement I'd
like to see.  E.g. `M-- C-M-h' selects the previous defun;
`M-2 C-M-h' selects the two previous defuns.

Someone should play around and dream up something useful.

Wrt #2, I'm not sure what the best approach might be.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

5. I decided to mark the comment together with the defun if there is no
empty line between the comment and the defun and leave it unmarked
otherwise.  I guess this is the most sensible approach I could think of.

Best,

--
Marcin Borkowski