Re: Python interactive navigation around nested functions

[Andreas Röhler]

On 20.06.2016 15:57, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
> On 2016-06-20 04:28, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> > On 20.06.2016 09:34, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >
> > > So both python-modes behave identically in this respect.  That would not
> > > be surprising if the behavior you don't like is the one usually
> > > considered as right.
> > Start and end of a functions definition is not about like or don't like.
> > Also not about "usually considered".
> I don't understand your aggressiveness,

Wherefrom do you derive any? The "you don't like" was introduced by 
Stefan, not me.


>   nor your point.  Stefan is just pointing out that C-M-a doesn't usually go to 
> the beginning of the enclosing
>   function definition

In any case it's not about enclosing, which would be reached by up-list 
related stuff, it's about start of current.

> (and the docs don't claim that it does, either):
>
>    (beginning-of-defun &optional ARG)
>    
>    Move backward to the beginning of a defun.


What means "a" defun? User may expect the beginning of definition of 
code at point. Which is not the case in current python.el, but fixed in 
python-mode.el meanwhile.

>    (...)
>    With ARG, do it that many times.  Negative ARG means move forward
>    to the ARGth following beginning of defun.
>
> I agree with the OP that it would be very nice to have a way to go back to the beginning 
> of the "current" defun (some sort of super C-M-u).

C-M-u would match the enclosing - python-mode.el delivers py-up. But 
that is not at stake here.


>   But I don't understand the vitriol.

No idea what you mean.