indent-buffer

indent-buffer

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

(defun indent-buffer ()
  (interactive)
  (indent-region (point-min) (point-max)) )

If one did it from scratch, perhaps one would have BEG and END
formal parameters for `indent-region' that were optional and
defaulting to (point-min) and (point-max), however as it
stands `indent-region' already has an optional COLUMN.

(Yeah, should be BEG, END, and COL, not START, END,
and COLUMN.)

There is also `pp--indent-buffer' that looks like this:

(defun pp--indent-buffer ()
  (goto-char (point-min))
  (while (not (eobp))
    (lisp-indent-line)
    (forward-line 1)))

(forward-line 1) is the same as (forward-line) BTW ... don't
know when that changed, I myself has 8 occurences of
(forward-line 1) ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

forward 1 (was: Re: indent-buffer)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

> (forward-line 1) is the same as (forward-line) BTW ... don't
> know when that changed, I myself has 8 occurences of
> (forward-line 1) ...

It seems that `forward-line', `forward-char', `forward-word'
and `backward-char' now takes 1 as the default, and it also
seems to be the case that using `backward-char' does no longer
make the byte-compiler say that the correct way is to use
(forward-char -1) - which is good, since `backward-char' is
more idiomatic - but (forward-char -1) still works, as do
(backward-char -1) - i.e., that's the same as (forward-char 1)
- or, now, (forward-char) ...

Take a look at `forward-button' tho, and `backward-button',
with those, N is still explicit ... don't know why, I suspect
a reason?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: forward 1 (was: Re: indent-buffer)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

> It seems that `forward-line', `forward-char', `forward-word'
> and `backward-char' now takes 1 as the default, and it also
> seems to be the case that using `backward-char' does no
> longer make the byte-compiler say that the correct way is to
> use (forward-char -1) - which is good, since `backward-char'
> is more idiomatic [...]

So there is a `forward-char' and a `backward-char';
a `forward-word' and a `backward-word'; a `forward-sentence'
and a `backward-sentence'; but while there is
a `forward-line', there isn't a "backward-line", so there one
will still have to use

  (forward-line)    ; advance one line
  (forward-line -1) ; go back one line

with

  (forward-line 0)  ; those who know know

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: forward 1 (was: Re: indent-buffer)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

> (forward-line)    ; advance one line
> (forward-line -1) ; go back one line

One can do stuff like this with this:

(defun adv (&optional rev)
  (forward-char (if rev -1 1)) )

(defun rev ()
  (adv t) )

;; (adv)
;; (rev)

So what does that mean, reversing is just another form of advancing?

Or it is true what they say in NGE, that You can
(not) advance?

https://dataswamp.org/~incal/FILM

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal