Re: Feedback on indentation rules

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi Simon,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 at 17:56, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback.  I wonder if some are of the opinion that since
>>> gexp->derivation is a plain function rather than a syntax having a
>>> special form for its 2nd argument, we should leave the default
>>> indentation rules untouched for it?
>>
>> Yes, that’s my take and current practice so far: special rules for
>> special forms (macros), not for procedures.
>
> What is the rationale?  Being able to know directly at the location when
> it is a plain function or a special form?
>
> For what it is worth, I do not see an high difference between the both
> indentations.  So, my opinion would to keep the current practise.

Please take a look at my original message in this thread,
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-02/msg00297.html,
where I gave examples of gexp->derivation indentations that should
explain the rationale allow nesting arguments more naturally, as if
gexp->derivation was a special form (although it's a simple procedure).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim