Re: Defuns in comint

[Daniel Colascione]

On October 3, 2024 9:40:34 PM PDT, Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 06:05, Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> wrote:
>>
>> How would people feel about defining defuns in comint mode as subprocesses 
>> outputs? This way, the same navigation keys people already have become more 
>> useful in comint mode without breaking anything, because defun navigation in 
>> comint is useless today.
>>
>> If not defuns, then paragraphs? Sentences? I feel like there should be 
>> *some* way of using existing sets of movement and marking commands to talk 
>> about outputs, and probably inputs.
>
>Maybe pages? (Might even work out of the box if the prompt contains ^L)

We'd need to add forward and backward page function hooks. Right now, page 
boundaries are still regexp-only, as many things were in days of yore.