Re: emacs-29 b18754bb179: Minor improvements in c-ts-mode and docs

[Theodor Thornhill]

On 16 February 2023 16:38:54 CET, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
>On 16/02/2023 17:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:51:09 +0200
>>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
>>> 
>>>> We could at least discuss that, sure.  Is there a list of
>>>> inconsistencies between those modes available anywhere?
>>> 
>>>   From past discussions and looking at 'C-h m':
>>> 
>>> - "electric" behaviors: CC Mode's commands vs. electric-indent-mode and
>>> electric-pair-mode.
>>> - c-subword-mode vs subword-mode
>>> - c-display-defun-name vs which-function-mode
>>> - c-indent-exp vs prog-indent-sexp
>>> - c-indent-defun/c-fill-paragraph vs prog-fill-reindent-defun
>>> - c-indent-line-or-region vs indent-for-tab-command and indent-region.
>> 
>> These don't exist in c-ts-mode, with the single exception of the
>> electric behavior of '#' (which is a must in C).
>
>Could it work by adding ?# to electric-indent-chars?
>

Yes, I have a patch for this ready to go :)

>> So I think we are
>> already there, no?
>
>We are at a crossroads. I think. To the left lies the approach I described. To 
>the right -- adding more stuff from CC Mode verbatim, simply because a lot of 
>people are already used to it.
>
>>> Curious how c-indent-line-or-region doesn't mind depending on
>>> transient-mark-mode being on.
>> 
>> It does:
>> 
>>    (c-indent-line-or-region &optional ARG REGION)
>> 
>>    Indent active region, current line, or block starting on this line.
>>    In Transient Mark mode, when the region is active, reindent the region.
>>    Otherwise, with a prefix argument, rigidly reindent the expression
>>    starting on the current line.
>>    Otherwise reindent just the current line.
>
>Does the description mean that using the prefix will force a "rigid 
>reindentation" of the region?
>
>>>> The next question, of course, is how to go about reducing the
>>>> inconsistencies.  What you proposed here is simply drop the
>>>> keybinding,
>>> 
>>> I also suggested, alternatively, that transient-mark-mode, when turned
>>> off, creates a global binding for comment-region (also with 'C-c C-c').
>> 
>> I'm not sure this is a good idea.  I'd rather we used the prefix
>> argument to M-; in some creative way, like if its value is zero or
>> negative.
>
>Could be a decent option. The meaning of C-u is already taken (to kill the 
>comment), but 'C-u C-u' could do something different. As long as users with 
>t-m-m=off think 'C-u C-u M-;' is a bearable substitute to 'C-c C-c'.
>