Re: Missing features in c-ts-mode

[Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>]

On 17 February 2023 17:37:47 CET, Ergus <spacibba@aol.com> wrote:
>Hi Eli and Theo:
>
>Yes, I know that the feature is not very "popular" to be enabled by
>default, but for parallel programming models based on pragmas (OpenMP,
>OmpSs, OpenACC) it is very important.
>
>Many people in my previous work moved to some other editor after years
>using emacs due to these apparently "small" details. Every time they
>wanted to indent a portion of code (i.e they added an if around it), all
>the pragmas moved out of their place and needed manual fix.
>
>On that moment I commented with Alan the possibility to make #pragma a
>syntactc symbol which we could control its indentation like anything
>else in c-mode (with +, ++, -, 0 or [0]). But he said that it required
>too many changes to implement that and offered this "toggle" solution
>good enough for me.
>
>I will open the feature request in a moment, but just wanted to comment
>the alternative solution more consistent and without an extra mode;
>because maybe that way may be simpler now in the new mode??
>
>Best,
>Ergus
>
>On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:20:59PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>
>>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, casouri@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 10:56:28 +0100
>>> 
>>> >      #pragma parallel for first private(x) \
>>> >          shared(y) etc
>>> >      for (...) {
>>> >          ....
>>> >      }
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > In this case the pragma in column zero is very confusing. Alan added a
>>> > new mode (c-toggle-cpp-indent-to-body) which worked around this issue a
>>> > few years ago. I don't if it is possible to enable similar behavior with
>>> > your change? Is is?
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Ergus
>>> >
>>> 
>>> It's absolutely possible, but IMO that sounds like an improvement for
>>> emacs 30, maybe?
>> 
>> It depends on how simple and safe the change will be.  But yes, I'm
>> okay with delaying this to Emacs 30 if the addition is complex enough.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 

Would this mean you'd want all preproc directives configurable, or only some in particular? I think a defcustom for either/or is doable for Emacs 29, but for granular control we'd need to think a bit more.

c-ts-mode-preproc-indent-to-body?