From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] gnu: Add python-requests-mock. Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:32:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87y4g7y4ey.fsf@T420.taylan> References: <1442265803-26218-1-git-send-email-tipecaml@gmail.com> <1442265803-26218-5-git-send-email-tipecaml@gmail.com> <8737yfaahw.fsf@openmailbox.org> <20150915171744.GA3054@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57244) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zbu5l-0005AX-1M for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:32:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zbu5f-00030V-4H for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:32:28 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]:37314) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zbu5e-00030H-VE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:32:23 -0400 Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so37356971wic.0 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:32:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150915171744.GA3054@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:17:44 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andreas Enge writes: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:54:51PM +0200, Mathieu Lirzin wrote: >> (sha256 >> (base32 >> "...")) > > like someone else previously on this list I was also puzzled by the discussion > on formatting style (meaning, I did not understand what the indentation to > apply or to avoid is), so I wonder if there are actual rules to be formulated > and applied in case of manual formatting. My impression so far was that > indentation is usually by 2 spaces. So does this mean we now indent only by 1, > or does it depend on the context? Emacs will use 2 spaces when the symbol (e.g. sha256 in this case) has its 'scheme-indent-function' property set, and 1 space otherwise. So you get (let (...) foobar) ;two spaces because 'let has its 'scheme-indent-function ;set to 1 (meaning *one* argument is "special", here the ;list of bindings) and (display (string-append foobar quux)) ;one space each because they're plain functions and have ;no 'scheme-indent-function property set Under Guix's sources, the .dir-locals.el file contains expressions of the form (put 'foo 'quux value), which insert properties into symbols. (Here the 'foo symbol gets its 'quux property set.) Symbols appearing there, like for instance 'with-store or 'modify-phases or 'substitute* should probably have their arguments 2-space indented, and others 1-space, since that's what Emacs will do automatically. By the way, shall you put a newline directly before the "special" argument of such a form, e.g. the bindings-list of a let expression, then you use 4 spaces for the "special" argument: (let (...) foobar) (modify-phases %standard-phases (replace 'foo bar) ...) And also, as you might have noticed, it's mostly macros that get their 'scheme-indent-function set. I don't know if this rule is enforced under Guix. Taylan