bug#60186: 29.0.60; ruby-mode indentation of multi-line expressions

[Aaron Jensen]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 10:56 AM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> On 27/12/2022 03:47, Aaron Jensen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 8:28 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25/12/2022 02:14, Aaron Jensen wrote:
> >>> (setq ruby-indent-simplified t
> >>
> >> BTW, do you have any opinion on the name? Perhaps something more
> >> semantic would be easier to discover.
> >>
> >> A recent tree-sitter thread brought up sh-indent-after-continuation.
> >> It's not a direct counterpart, though, and the examples only look
> >> remotely similar.
> >>
> >> Call ours ruby-indent-continuations-simplified, maybe? Now that we seem
> >> to have reduced its scope to expression continuations across newlines.
> >>
> >> Hopefully it won't be confused with Kernel#callcc.
> >
> > Simple is what it is in comparison to something more complex.
>
> Just 1 indent vs arbitrary number of indents depending on operator
> priority/ast nesting. Seems like "simpler" is appropriate.

Right, but that was my point. The name doesn't stand on its own. It
only stands relative to some other more complex indentation scheme. If
we can find a name that stands on its own, I think that would be
better.

> > All
> > indentations are pretty much about line continuation in one way or
> > another.
>
> Okay, how about ruby-indent-operator-continuation?
>
> Or ruby-indent-binary-op-continuation. Which would include all binary
> operators and method calls. *shrug* We could also split off the method
> call indentation to a separate option too.

Right, maybe it makes sense to consider one of two directions:

1. A single option to enable this "simple" indentation mode, i.e.
ruby-indent-alignment: line/statement/start/beginning vs. sibling/end
2. Split each different rule into its own option and name them
according to the specific circumstance the rule covers. I still don't
know what the options would be.

That said, when you say method calls, you mean the '.' operator, yes?
I see what you're getting at with this naming and I think it's
probably cohesive enough to be one option per #2 above.

> > What is it on its own? I'm not sure.
> >
> > Some food for thought:
> >
> > Unaligned
>
> That might be a good adjective (if we take it to mean, not aligned to
> the closest parent AST node), but something else to narrow down the
> scope is needed in the name. ruby-operator-unaligned-indent?
>
> ruby-operator-shallow-indent?
>
> > Beginning of line aligned
>
> Beginning of statement, I guess?

Yeah, that would be better than line

> > Standard
>
> "Standard" is a point of view. ;-)

Indeed... there is also https://github.com/testdouble/standard but I
think it's a bit of a land grab to call it standard and I've never
really looked at it.


I put incremental in the last list since I was trying to get at the
fact that the indentation increases by one increment at a time. Is
there something about it being that vs it context-aware? Obviously all
indentation is context aware, so I'm not sure that that's the right
direction.

Aaron