Re: emacs-29 b18754bb179: Minor improvements in c-ts-mode and docs

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 16/02/2023 17:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:51:09 +0200
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
>>
>>> We could at least discuss that, sure.  Is there a list of
>>> inconsistencies between those modes available anywhere?
>>
>>   From past discussions and looking at 'C-h m':
>>
>> - "electric" behaviors: CC Mode's commands vs. electric-indent-mode and
>> electric-pair-mode.
>> - c-subword-mode vs subword-mode
>> - c-display-defun-name vs which-function-mode
>> - c-indent-exp vs prog-indent-sexp
>> - c-indent-defun/c-fill-paragraph vs prog-fill-reindent-defun
>> - c-indent-line-or-region vs indent-for-tab-command and indent-region.
> 
> These don't exist in c-ts-mode, with the single exception of the
> electric behavior of '#' (which is a must in C).

Could it work by adding ?# to electric-indent-chars?

> So I think we are
> already there, no?

We are at a crossroads. I think. To the left lies the approach I 
described. To the right -- adding more stuff from CC Mode verbatim, 
simply because a lot of people are already used to it.

>> Curious how c-indent-line-or-region doesn't mind depending on
>> transient-mark-mode being on.
> 
> It does:
> 
>    (c-indent-line-or-region &optional ARG REGION)
> 
>    Indent active region, current line, or block starting on this line.
>    In Transient Mark mode, when the region is active, reindent the region.
>    Otherwise, with a prefix argument, rigidly reindent the expression
>    starting on the current line.
>    Otherwise reindent just the current line.

Does the description mean that using the prefix will force a "rigid 
reindentation" of the region?

>>> The next question, of course, is how to go about reducing the
>>> inconsistencies.  What you proposed here is simply drop the
>>> keybinding,
>>
>> I also suggested, alternatively, that transient-mark-mode, when turned
>> off, creates a global binding for comment-region (also with 'C-c C-c').
> 
> I'm not sure this is a good idea.  I'd rather we used the prefix
> argument to M-; in some creative way, like if its value is zero or
> negative.

Could be a decent option. The meaning of C-u is already taken (to kill 
the comment), but 'C-u C-u' could do something different. As long as 
users with t-m-m=off think 'C-u C-u M-;' is a bearable substitute to 
'C-c C-c'.