[V] Re: beginning-of-defun bug

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andreas Roehler writes:

 > Sorry, Stephen, seems we are not capable to reach some
 > minimum of understanding.

That's true.  If you can find somebody to tell me that what you
propose makes any sense at all, I'll think about it again.  But it
still seems to me that the obvious solution for python-mode is the
right one: bind C-M-a directly to py-beginning-of-def-or-class, and
C-M-e directly to py-end-of-def-or-class (if it exists).

 > I'm not willing to play the maintainer then for these bugs.

What bugs?  You've described one issue, that the documented and
implemented behavior of beginning-of-defun differs from the behavior
you want to implement with py-beginning-of-def-or-class.  That's not a
bug in beginning-of-defun.  What *other* issues are you talking about?

 > Seeing no way to do further commits in these circumstances, I
 > rather step down as maintainer.

That's up to you.  My advice is to stick around, though.  You seem to
have a lot to learn about interface design both in general and with
respect to Emacs, and you've already gotten a pile of good advice in
this thread alone.  OTOH, I doubt you'll find a mentor anywhere who
approves of your proposal to integrate py-beginning-of-def-or-class
into beginning-of-defun via beginning-of-defun-function.  (But if you
do, please ask him or her to explain it to me!)