On 4/16/2010 2:28 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:03 AM, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
I dunno. If it's useful to people sure, but I doubt I'd use them much.
Sometimes it's just quicker to use C-n and C-p y'know? :)
well duh, if you have working hands it certainly is easier. like
On Apr 16, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Andreas Roehler wrote:
>trying to keep some experimental implementations synced
>semantically, I'm stumbling about the following:
>
>py-goto-block-up (&optional nomark)
> "Move up to start of current block.
>Go to the statement that starts the smallest enclosing bloc
Hi,
After passing some time comparing how python-mode.el and python.el create
the Python interpreter, I figured out that if I (setq
process-connection-type nil) in python-mode-hook, then everything work fine.
Marc
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Andreas Roehler
wrote:
> Marc Massar wrote:
> >
On 4/16/2010 5:27 AM, Andreas Roehler wrote:
Hi Barry,
trying to keep some experimental implementations synced
semantically, I'm stumbling about the following:
py-goto-block-up (&optional nomark)
"Move up to start of current block.
Go to the statement that starts the smallest enclosing bloc
Hi Barry,
trying to keep some experimental implementations synced
semantically, I'm stumbling about the following:
py-goto-block-up (&optional nomark)
"Move up to start of current block.
Go to the statement that starts the smallest enclosing block; roughly
speaking, this will be the closest pr
