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

[Aaron Jensen]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 8:02 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> On 28/12/2022 02:38, Aaron Jensen wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > This may end up being the right direction. If the values are symbols
> > you can use things that are relative to one another like "simple".
> > There could be a benefit to all of these having a "simple" option.
> > What would it mean if it were nil?
> > What's the current behavior called?
>
> For the sake of uniformity, I wanted to start with simple values -- t
> and nil, and explain their meanings in the docstring.
>
> 't' would mean the current behavior, and I'd call it "structural", or
> structure-based indentation. Or based on implicit expression grouping.

I'd typically not use t and nil on anything but a boolean and the name
would be named after what t represents, but this may be an Emacs idiom
that is OK. If so, and there's no better options (i.e., going against
that idiom is worse than not), then that works for me.


> > It may be that if we only intend to support two indentation schemes we
> > just have default and simplified as you suggested and then we can use
> > boolean values. I don't know how Emacs-like this is, but what if there
> > were one variable like `ruby-indent-simple` that could either be `t`
> > or a list of things to indent simply?
>
> That can work too, but what is "simple"? ;-)
>
> Further, I'm not sure if we're going to get more than 2 "things" this
> way (operators and method calls). OTOH, if we have a separate var for
> operators -- ruby-operator-indent -- we could enumerate which operators
> to indent "structurally" after. Or something like that.
>
> Not sure which direction the feature requests will drive this extension
> toward, though. Maybe mostly nowhere, given the previous history. But
> Rubocop's example seems to indicate that there are many different styles
> out there.

Yeah, hard to say, and it may eventually become less important if
ruby-ts comes about and has enough options to satisfy folks with
different ideas about indentation.

Aaron