On 3/22/14, 3:05 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> David Caldwell <david@porkrind.org> writes:
> 
>> On 3/22/14, 9:14 AM, Stefan wrote:
>>> It seems now that your main (only?) objection is having RET do
>>> reindent-then-newline-and-indent instead of having it only do
>>> newline-and-indent.  If that's the case, then let's focus on this.
>>> In what scenario is it a problem?
>>
>> Let me ask this, in what scenario does it actually do anything useful?
> 
>    }
>    ^
> 
> When pressing RET now, the result should be
> 
>    }
> 
>    ^
> 
> with the added empty line being _empty_ rather than containing two
> spaces.

Then perhaps it shouldn't act like "TAB RET TAB" but instead like "M-\
RET TAB". Or even "s/^\s +$// RET TAB" (in case preserving trailing
whitespace on a non-blank line is somehow better—though I think it would
not be).

-David