Re: Defuns in comint

[Yuri Khan]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 06:05, Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> 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.

Maybe pages? (Might even work out of the box if the prompt contains ^L)