From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Lifting all buffer restrictions in indentation functions Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:47:44 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83wp1xupqs.fsf@gnu.org> <83shclugwo.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1512766079 31919 195.159.176.226 (8 Dec 2017 20:47:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 20:47:59 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 08 21:47:55 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eNPYp-0008Bh-9N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:47:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38998 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNPYw-0006Fp-KE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:48:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55810) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNPYq-0006Ff-SR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:47:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNPYn-0005jW-QZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:47:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=57230 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNPYn-0005jN-Iq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:47:53 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eNPYd-0007sN-MU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:47:43 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 23 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:j9fc97PJZhIK4kzW2y6MgW0jftc= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:220800 Archived-At: > And I don't think calling indent-line-function directly instead is the > solution, because indent-according-to-mode, indent-for-tab-command > etc. are not just trivial wrappers around the call to > indent-line-function, they have additional functionality (otherwise > why do we have them at all?). I can't imagine a scenario where you'd use indent-for-tab-command in that context. As for indent-according-to-mode, its only difference with calling indent-line-function is for pseudo-indentation functions (indent-relative and friends) where it has an ad-hoc hack to "try and do the right thing", but it's far from clear what would be The Right Thing to do in such a narrowed scenario anyway (call indent-line-function directly, use the ad-hoc hack, or do yet something else). Most cases of calling indent-line-function or indent-according-to-mode when indent-line-function is one of those pseudo-indentation functions don't really do the right thing anyway. So it sounds highly hypothetical, and it's not clear if would be more often right or more often wrong in those hypothetical cases. Stefan