[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Indentation of def*

From: João Távora
Subject: Re: Indentation of def*
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:32:51 +0100

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:38 AM Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:
> João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:
> > Right. And your example is a _function_.  Why don't you _at least_ keep
> > the heuristic for macros? Isn't that a worthy compromise, a "no-worse"
> > situation? It would fix your default-boundp example and, if Richard's
> > example deffoober is a macro (I'd say there's a good chance it is,
> > statistically speaking) then the calls to that macro would also be
> > indented correctly.
> > What am I missing?
> We've been over this.  There's both functions and macros that want to be
> indented like a defun, and there both functions a macros that don't want
> to be, and sometimes they're called something that starts with def* and
> sometimes they don't.

Right, I know.  I was referring to the example you gave. I've
also asked you for the listings that you've supposedly collected
on those things so we can make a better informed decision.

But, regardless, is it not so that there are various grades of
change here?

a - do nothing
b - keep heuristic but only for macros, delete for everything else.
c - delete heuristic entirely

>From your perspective, isn't 'b' better than 'a'? Yes I get that, for you,
'c' > 'b' and that's why you did it.

But I think there are at least some situations where 'b' is preferrable.

So I'd like to have 'b' please. A compromise.  We could add those
debug specs to the def _functions_ like your example. Whoever
these functions are and however many there are. Again, it'd be
great to have the data. Some data.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]