> Because it only finds `defun' calls, it fails to find other constructs > that define functions or macros.
This would be the task of `beginning-of-form' - a more abstract utility. A command that only finds calls to `defun' is not very useful. Indeed. Will proceed here. Will it be possible to write a reg-exp which matches a functions definition reliable? Not entirely reliable, I am afraid. You need to use syntax-ppss starting from a known top-level expression to find out whether a given position is inside a string. IMO different meanings of `defun' in Emacs are the reason of a major difficulty for beginners (at least for non-programmers). Have you had experience with a lot of beginners that got confused about this? I am not yet convinced that we should change it. Our use of the term "defun" for editing commands has 30 years of history behind it, and I have not yet seen evidence that it is a problem. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug