Re: Defuns in comint

[Daniel Colascione]

On October 3, 2024 4:32:14 PM PDT, Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> wrote:
>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.

Sure, but 1) I don't want to stop at paragraph boundaries, and 2) remapping 
movement commands is less powerful and consistent than changing the definitions 
of those movements, which is why we have beginning-of-X-function variables.