Clojurians Log v2
emacs
is there a navigation function like end-of-defun, that works on the ignored expressions (`#_) hidden expressions in cider. I was using end-of-defun` but maybe there's been a change and it doesn't navigate properly to the end of the ignore expression
Could you be a little more specific about the behavior you're expecting? Like maybe a form
(let [a 1 b 2] |#_(ignored form) (+ a b))yes, so in my case I am working on a fn that will evaluation n forms from the current cursor, so say I have my cursor
(defn test-fn |[a] ...)
#_[(test-fn 1)
(test-fn [])]end-of-defun moves the cursor in the right place, after the current form, and I can evaluate fine. When I try end-of-defun again, the cursor ends up here:
#_|[(test-fn 1)
(test-fn [])]I can work with just having it not uncommented, and comment it later since I expect to move it to a test area
(defun +user/eval-n-defuns (n)
(interactive "P")
(save-excursion
(dotimes (number (or n 2))
(end-of-defun)
(+user/run-eval-fun))))+user/run-eval-fun just executes which eval to use in which major-modeAcrually, ideally I want it not to skip, as you can properly cider-eval-last-sexp of an ignored form with cider. The purpose is to have the function you're testing above a commented form of usages of that function for quick feedback when you are developing. Then eventually move those usages to test cases. It's based on a technique I saw a blog about and used ever since. At the time it did work with those ignored forms
Then test for #_ and run paredit-forword-sexp instead of what I suggested. :)
You also may be interested in this discussion. :) https://clojurians.slack.com/archives/C099W16KZ/p1625077166109100?thread_ts=1624974213.101000&cid=C099W16KZ
The good thing about my way is it displays the result inline, so if I want to set up a quick case I can see the result rather than "test pass" or "test fail". This helps craft output in a quicker way this was the gist I took it from https://gist.github.com/cstby/0cff1f7eb48eb18c6690e6cdb919ca69
I was also mistaken, before bounds-of-thing-at-point worked
either way, I think I can figure out something for those
:thumbsup: