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

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 27/12/2022 18:34, Aaron Jensen wrote:

> > > 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.

That's true.

But it seems we've rejected most of each other's suggestions by now.

> > > 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.

Right. If we consider "." as something distinct, it could use a separate 
option. Or not. But it's trivial to separate.

> > "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.

Concur.

> 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.

IDK, there might be different connotations, e.g. it always grows (though 
slowly).

>  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.

"More" context-aware, one could say. Or less. But that's the same as 
"simpler".

I suppose we could call it structural..? The current behavior, that is. 
As in 
https://github.com/yairchu/awesome-structure-editors#structural-code-editor-projects.

Or here's a step back: looking at how the two other user options I named 
previously were ruby-method-params-indent and ruby-block-indent, the 
latest might as well be called ruby-operator-indent, or 
ruby-operator-indent and ruby-method-call-indent.

I wasn't too crazy about those names originally, but the approach is 
very extensible with styles by adding new symbols as possible values.