[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#40219: 26.3; f90-end-of-block doesn't work with a prefix argument (a
From: |
Lars Ingebrigtsen |
Subject: |
bug#40219: 26.3; f90-end-of-block doesn't work with a prefix argument (and possibly it's semantics is wrong) |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:10:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com> writes:
> If you try C-3 C-M-n, the command will fail, saying "missing block end".
> Frankly, the semantic of the command is unclear. That is, the command is
> expected to move the point "to the end of the current block" -- that is
> "outside of the block's scope". And with the numeric prefix argument it will
> "do
> the same thing several times", that is "it will exit n nested scopes",
> rather than "go forward n balanced blocks". Additionally, it's Emacs
> Lisp's counterpart bound to C-M-n does _not_ exit the scope of the list,
> but rather moves between blocks (list elements) within an enclosing
> scope.
>
> This is not to be confused with C-c C-e (f90-next-block), because
> f90-next-block moves between _not_ balanced blocks. That is, it will
> enter each new scope, such as the (do) loop on line 16.
The semantics are unclear, but I think it looks like this works as
designed.
subroutine parse_symbol( )
do
end do
end subroutine parse_symbol
If point is at the end of the second line, then `C-u 2 C-M-n' will end
up after
end subroutine parse_symbol
because it's gone "out" of two blocks.
I don't know Fortran well, but the way the commands work here make
sense, I think, so I'm closing this bug report.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- bug#40219: 26.3; f90-end-of-block doesn't work with a prefix argument (and possibly it's semantics is wrong),
Lars Ingebrigtsen <=