Ryan Zoeller <rtzoeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 1. Is this indentation-aware function identification useful, and > generally worth pursuing further? I cannot shake the feeling off that this is being overly generous and inviting for misidentification for languages whose usual convention is not to nest and indent the definitions freely. IOW, why can't the "we allow leading whitespaces" a per-language thing? IOW, why do we even need any new code---shouldn't it be just the matter of defining xfuncname patterns for such a language with nested and indented definitions? So, a mild Meh from me at this point. I may change my mind in the morning, though ;-) Thanks.
