From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: A Soare Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Indentation of LISP code Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:16:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <816883.134411172610967765.JavaMail.www@wwinf4102> Reply-To: alinsoar@voila.fr NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172610991 4091 80.91.229.12 (27 Feb 2007 21:16:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:16:31 +0000 (UTC) To: "Emacs Dev [emacs-devel]" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 27 22:16:24 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HM9gN-0006IU-0z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:16:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HM9gM-0006EB-Kb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:16:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HM9gB-0006E6-H4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:16:11 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HM9g9-0006Du-JR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:16:10 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HM9g9-0006Dn-FZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:16:09 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp2.voila.fr ([193.252.22.175] helo=smtp1.voila.fr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HM9g9-0008V3-5g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:16:09 -0500 Original-Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf4103.voila.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id CE48B1C00740 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:16:07 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from wwinf4102 (wwinf4102 [172.22.152.29]) by mwinf4103.voila.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BE4331C0073B for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:16:07 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20070227211607779.BE4331C0073B@mwinf4103.voila.fr X-Originating-IP: [86.107.96.49] X-Wum-Nature: EMAIL-NATURE X-WUM-FROM: |~| X-WUM-TO: |~| X-WUM-REPLYTO: |~| X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:66954 Archived-At: Because it was proved that the indentation in lisp mode must be rewritten ( project for after the release ) I would like to ask your opinion about this situation: Do you prefer that the line ( defun ( x &optional a b c d) after applying an indent-function stay in the same form, or to be rendered so: (defun (x &optional a b c d) I would like to know your opinions about. Thank you. Alin Soare