Re: Defuns in comint

[Jim Porter]

On 10/3/2024 4:04 PM, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> How would people feel about defining defuns in comint mode as 
> subprocesses outputs? This way, the same navigation keys people already 
> have become more useful in comint mode without breaking anything, 
> because defun navigation in comint is useless today.
>
> If not defuns, then paragraphs? Sentences? I feel like there should be 
> *some* way of using existing sets of movement and marking commands to 
> talk about outputs, and probably inputs.

You might be interested in lisp/eshell/em-prompt.el, which remaps 
forward/backward-paragraph so that they stop at each empty line *or* prompt.