Re: Mysterious fontification/C++ context issue

[martin rudalics]

> I don't understand this point (and I don't remember the previous mail).
> What do you think it should say here?

Suppose you have a construct like

(foo

...) (bar ...)

and you invoke `beginning-of-defun' from somewhere after "bar".
`beginning-of-defun-raw' will determine that the "defun" starts at the
open paren preceding "bar" but `beginning-of-defun' may return the
position at line beginning which is inside the parens of "foo".

This was a non-issue with the old `beginning-of-defun' which detected a
defun iff there was an opening paren at column zero.

>     2. That a user's idea of "defun" for her programming language does not
>     necessarily coincide with that of `beginning-of-defun'.
>
> The major mode is supposed to try to make them correspond.
> It seems strange to assume that it doesn't succeed.

If it really succeeded why should C mode ever bother to provide its own
`c-beginning-of-defun'?

>
>     foo (...)
>     ...
>     {
>     ...
>     }
>
>     will now get you two defuns instead of one.
>
> We're still considering how to change the way C mode handles
> this case, and I don't think that will be true when we are done.

We're still considering how to handle this within `beginning-of-defun',
not necessarily in C mode.

> Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss what happens in
> specific modes.

The current change affects the behavior of `beginning-of-defun' which
may affect other modes as well.