Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 b6d6304: Comment on last change to define-derived-mode

[Oleh Krehel <oleh@oremacs.com>]

Leo Liu <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2016-03-01 09:24 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> That should at least give one example where adding (indent 3) hurts.
>
> define-derived-mode is available since at least emacs 22.1 without any
> (indent N) settings. I think maybe it is better to think in the other
> direction that is what does (indent 3) bring to the table? is it worth
> breaking 10 years of practice? Personally I have code that looks like
> this:
>
>  (define-derived-mode lcnt-mode special-mode nil :abbrev-table nil
>    ...)

This is a wrong kind of code in my opinion. There is value in all code
looking the same and feeling immediately right to every programmer.  If
in 95% of cases `define-derived-mode' already looks like it is (indent
3), why not make that "the official look" and nudge the remaining 5%
(i.e. you) into conforming.

This is the kind of thought that I've put in to making that commit. I
actually examined all instances of indentation in core and MELPA.

Unfortunately, we have a person that puts his own fancies ahead of the
better style for everyone. And has the audacity to revert commits just
because his little bit of code doesn't look right.

    Oleh