From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Incorrect indentation after :name Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:21:32 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1120775125 26179 80.91.229.2 (7 Jul 2005 22:25:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:25:25 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 08 00:25:22 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqeny-0006JZ-RL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:25:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqepM-00022U-Jq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:26:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DqenC-0001nQ-5O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:24:26 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqemr-0001aC-1d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:24:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqemq-0001Z5-O1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:24:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [141.146.126.228] (helo=agminet01.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1Dqer2-0005QR-NM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:28:24 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j67MLZ5V005258 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:21:35 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.49]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j67MLYPQ005232 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:21:35 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j67MLYLJ028628 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:21:34 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dradams-lap.us.oracle.com [130.35.177.126]) by rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with SMTP id j67MLYFb028623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:21:34 -0600 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Importance: Normal X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:40605 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:40605 > > (put 'if 'common-lisp-indent-function > > '(nil nil &body)))) > This breaks the standard indentation of IF in lisp-mode buffers. By standard, I mean the accepted way of indenting IF in common lisp. Do we care about breaking the common-lisp standard for indentation of Emacs Lisp? I don't care if we break it. (But see below - I see now that you are not talking about Emacs-Lisp code.) it will affect indentation of IF in all modes that use common-lisp-indent-function to indent. in common lisp: (if test then else) OK, I understand. The `put' affects also the common-lisp standard indentation for `if', and that indentation is not appropriate for Common-Lisp `if'. My suggestion was not to simply add the above code, but to integrate its behavior. You're right that it would be preferable to integrate it only for the proper modes - so that it doesn't affect editing of common-lisp code, for instance. Currently, it looks as if common-lisp-mode is an alias for lisp-mode. Because there are syntax differences between Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp, perhaps it would be better not to have this simple alias, and to allow for behavioral differences (e.g. indentation). Lisp-interaction-mode and emacs-lisp-mode are built on lisp-mode, and they both should, I think, have the indentation support appropriate to emacs-lisp. (Not sure about the status of lisp-interaction-mode - in *scratch*, at least, it is best to have Emacs-Lisp indentation support.) IOW, the idea is to have this indentation for Emacs Lisp, including in *scratch* (which is in lisp-interaction-mode). Yes, it would be wrong to impose this on Common-Lisp (or other Lisp) code also.