Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Update julia-mode.el #215

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kevinli1993
Copy link

Make julia-beginning-of-defun a command

Make `julia-beginning-of-defun` a command
@tpapp
Copy link
Collaborator

tpapp commented Nov 29, 2024

Can you please explain why you need this? This is a function meant to be called by Emacs Lisp code under the usual circumstances.

@kevinli1993
Copy link
Author

Thanks, I see. I hadn't realized elisp's beginning-of-defun would call this function. So indeed it is not needed.

That said, including this would make for a nice symmetry with julia-beginning-of-defun, which is (interactive) even though elisp also has end-of-defun.

I'll defer to you for whether to merge or not.

@non-Jedi
Copy link
Contributor

non-Jedi commented Dec 4, 2024

I think the proper fix is to make julia-end-of-defun non-interactive. I've added a note for this to #136.

Could you do a little digging to see if there's any rationale for why you might want end-of-defun-function to be interactive but not beginning-of-defun-function? I noticed when I was poking around that python-nav-end-of-defun is interactive while python-nav-beginning-of-defun is not; didn't check any other language major modes.

@tpapp
Copy link
Collaborator

tpapp commented Dec 9, 2024

My hunch is that @nverno introduced this in #63 basing the code on the Python mode, and there is no particular reason for it in our codebase. @nverno, any comments?

I am inclined to just remove this. And then address #136, now that we tag versions again 😉

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants