Hi,
on something like
#+foo (defun foo (...) ...) |
or
#+foo (defun foo (...) ...) |
Do you think C-c C-c should take the reader conditional into account?
As `slime-region-for-defun-at-point' happens to be implemented right now, it isn't.
-T.
* Tobias C. Rittweiler [2008-02-26 19:26+0100] writes:
Hi,
on something like
#+foo (defun foo (...) ...) |
or
#+foo (defun foo (...) ...) |
Do you think C-c C-c should take the reader conditional into account?
As `slime-region-for-defun-at-point' happens to be implemented right now, it isn't.
I think that C-c C-c should do approximately the same as mark-defun, i.e. use beginning-of-defun and end-of-defun. Right now we use and end-of-defun and beginning-of-sexp. That should be changed. Going beyond would be more difficult and (arguably) too DWIMish.
People who want more smartness can then customize it with beginning-of-defun-function.
Helmut.
I suppose this may be too much hair or DWIM, but I've on occasion hoped that C-c C-c that would ignore toplevel #-/#+ as above, but take #. into account...
Example:
#.(let ((forms (loop for name in '(foo bar quux) collect `(defvar ,name)))) `(progn ,@forms))
Not pretty, but I did end up spending a while scratching my head, wondering why my changes didn't have the expected effect when working on a construct like this -- I did finally figure it out, and slime-eval-region does TRT here, so this is not critical.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
On 26-Feb-08, at 1:26 PM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
on something like
#+foo (defun foo (...) ...) |
or
#+foo (defun foo (...) ...) |
Do you think C-c C-c should take the reader conditional into account?
For what it's worth, I like the current behaviour and use it frequently. It's handy to have the ability to compile individual forms that may fail when building up a file, but not have those failure issues crop when when compiling the whole file with C-c C-k, for example.
If this disappeared, I'd sorely miss it.
-- Geoff
-
Geoff Wozniak -
Helmut Eller -
Nikodemus Siivola -
Tobias C. Rittweiler