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: how to get M-; pre-Emacs 22 behavior Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:17:16 -0800 Message-ID: <86A046B07BB24913BC5C4B6B242633EE@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1292977069 18590 80.91.229.12 (22 Dec 2010 00:17:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:17:49 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Emacs-Devel devel'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 22 01:17:43 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PVCOi-0003lL-9Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 01:17:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48191 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PVCOh-0006QO-AH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:17:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43090 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PVCOb-0006QJ-W1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:17:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PVCOa-0003yh-Nk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:17:33 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:54792) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PVCOa-0003yZ-IW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:17:32 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id oBM0HR12029271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:17:29 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id oBM08JJg006063 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:17:27 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt006.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 895376861292977032; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:17:12 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.239.39) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:17:12 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcuhbZbLiYvJ43uUTBqi1uZzZrlUow== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:133882 Archived-At: Is there a simple way to tell Emacs to use the `M-;' indenting that was available before Emacs 22? This is what it does now (22+): (if (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy) ; Y's comment (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)) ; Z's comment (if (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy) (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)) ; Z's comment Prior to Emacs 22 both Z comments had the same indentation: the indentation of the second example. I prefer that. To me, there is little reason to align a comment for one `if' branch with a comment for the other branch (no more reason than aligning the sexps for the two branches). Is there some option today that gives the pre-22 behavior? Note that the older `M-;' indenting still did align comments generally, but not in the case of `if' branches. E.g., this example from (elisp) `Comment Tips' is very old, and in Emacs 20 the same alignment was used: (setq base-version-list ; there was a base (assoc (substring fn 0 start-vn) ; version to which file-version-assoc-list)) ; this looks like ; a subversion Such alignment can be good esp. for comments like the one shown, which (logically) extend over several lines. It does not make much sense (IMHO) for the different branches of an `if'. I prefer this: (if (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy) ; Y's comment (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) ; Z's comment which is (zzzzzzzzzzz)) ; long and so continues With the 22+ indenting, which code is targeted by comment lines is less clear, IMO. With everything aligned it's harder to see where one comment ends and another begins. Simple option choice somewhere?