From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Incorrect indentation after :name Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:36:50 -0400 Message-ID: References: <42C80B48.3080103@student.lu.se> <87r7edhlsu.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <200507060020.j660KVL21546@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <85ekabrdma.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1120716295 6734 80.91.229.2 (7 Jul 2005 06:04:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 06:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se, teirllm@dms.auburn.edu, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 07 08:04:54 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqPVB-0005sA-DM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 08:04:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqPWW-0008IR-FI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 02:06:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DqPLH-0004kR-Bs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:54:35 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DqPL4-0004bL-7A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:54:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqPL1-0004SV-Ta for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:54:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DqPCt-0001bM-05 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:45:55 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DqP46-00052c-Td; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:36:50 -0400 Original-To: David Kastrup In-reply-to: <85ekabrdma.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 20:30:37 +0200) 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:40530 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:40530 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?