Re: Incorrect indentation after :name

["Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>]

    I'd somewhat visually prefer
       '( function and function )

I really dislike spaces inside of parens, so I would not want to
choose that.  However, I'm not insisting on the space before the
open-paren as the convention.

    and it also does not need to also take a look at `

I am having trouble parsing that text, but I suppose we would want to
apply the same convention to both quote and backquote.

						       and maybe even
    (quote ...) (which is the rendition of printed Lisp expressions).

I don't think it is necessary to apply this convention to (quote ...).
This convention would only be relevant for hand-editing of source
code.  If you are hand-editing and you care about making the code
pretty, you surely should replace (quote ...) with a singlequote.

    Of course, this proposal has the disadvantage that the probably more
    common case of a function (or non-function!) list needs extra
    formatting, so it is probably not useful in practice.

I can't understand "function (or non-function!) list".  Sorry.

    However, if we _combine_ both proposals with an added criterion, we
    might arrive at the following rule set:

I don't see a need for three conventions--it seems to me that two
would be enough.  One would say "this list is an expression", and the
other would say "this list is not an expression".  Given those two,
there is no need for a third convention that would say "maybe this is
an expression--please guess".  You, the programmer, always know
whether a given quoted list is an expression, and you can choose among
the two conventions accordingly.

If you disagree with that argument, could you explain why?