From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leo Liu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 b6d6304: Comment on last change to define-derived-mode Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:10:59 +0800 Message-ID: References: <87wppgax5o.fsf@oremacs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457323898 32532 80.91.229.3 (7 Mar 2016 04:11:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 04:11:38 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 07 05:11:29 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1acmVx-0000in-Ji for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53449 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acmVr-0003wA-Sn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 23:11:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58102) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acmVo-0003vw-DN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 23:11:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acmVl-0002bN-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 23:11:16 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45616) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acmVk-0002bJ-TP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 23:11:13 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1acmVh-0000c4-JU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 05:11:09 +0100 Original-Received: from 116.213.171.151 ([116.213.171.151]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 05:11:09 +0100 Original-Received: from sdl.web by 116.213.171.151 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 05:11:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 11 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 116.213.171.151 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAACgAAAAoBAMAAAB+0KVeAAAAElBMVEUAAAAAAP+LRRP0pGC+ vr7///+7mT1iAAAAAWJLR0QAiAUdSAAAAAlwSFlzAAALEwAACxMBAJqcGAAAAAd0SU1FB9cBBwMO DhglKe4AAAEsSURBVCjPbZNBboQwDEV/Cd4X9QJRThApmn0XYW+Jyf2v0m+HhqDBgiAe9rcTG7QH w/1Vn2Ar8gBb/ocywSN3qK9T3z4eFDB4eApocBpeBs1RSykoJd8gQcm8pGmHXFso3ajnmsqV0TnY DQkOfXUfN5NwaI7AWTVOyEhcu1aHmdWItHddUVUcUgUBCkitu8V6ditHVOVdqzl2EQ1ZVGTbdK0V 7cqn8vWzoU5Q/bF9Y/Y0cRU1xwkys5dJ+Dt6pBDWifcNQml8Gh2JVmPSoQzo7en0grswkxrUGYJ7 0hSxxAGr7ZMwYcHIzprpi7TENEE1xtiYxixRlCfPBsUUrwHD7uGIwATrbnODJcVrPpVn3hxiGloe m/S+z3CtuzUSMo83N4DPH+F0evwR3P4A2k+75838OKQAAAAASUVORK5CYII= User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.92 (OS X 10.11.3) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Tabef6/K0yf2Cawee1goutppGTA= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201035 Archived-At: On 2016-03-06 13:01 -0800, John Wiegley wrote: > Wouldn't it change the way old code might get re-indented? In other > words, was this a no-op addition of metadata, or did it have aesthetic > impact on the way code gets indented? I think it is a misunderstanding that missing a (indent N) in an oversight when it is actually a deliberate design. A lot of the def-ish macros have this pattern. See the doc-string of lisp-indent-function. HTH, Leo