[slime-devel] Indentation of WITH-SLOTS and WITH-ACCESSORS
The current behaviour of slime-indentation is to indent them like MULTIPLE-VALUE-BIND. (with-slots (x y z) object (list x y z)) (with-accessors (x y z) object (list x y z)) However, the Hyperspec and a number of other books seem to suggest that the instance argument lines up with the parameters. (with-slots (x y z) object (list x y z)) (with-accessors (x y z) object (list x y z)) I've attached a patch that will format these forms like the second example. -- Daniel White
Daniel White <daniel@whitehouse.id.au> writes:
The current behaviour of slime-indentation is to indent them like MULTIPLE-VALUE-BIND.
(with-slots (x y z) object (list x y z))
(with-accessors (x y z) object (list x y z))
However, the Hyperspec and a number of other books seem to suggest that the instance argument lines up with the parameters.
(with-slots (x y z) object (list x y z))
(with-accessors (x y z) object (list x y z))
I've attached a patch that will format these forms like the second example.
Except for the argument from authority, do you actually like that? It gives away precious screen space for no reason. (Notice that your patch addresses the slime-indentation contrib only. That contrib is not widely used. It does not change the way Emacs indent these (or similiar) forms by default. It also does not address that Slime does some indentation magic based on a macro's lambda list.) -T.
On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:54:23 +0200 "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <tcr@freebits.de> wrote:
Daniel White <daniel@whitehouse.id.au> writes:
[snip...]
However, the Hyperspec and a number of other books seem to suggest that the instance argument lines up with the parameters.
(with-slots (x y z) object (list x y z))
(with-accessors (x y z) object (list x y z))
I've attached a patch that will format these forms like the second example.
Except for the argument from authority, do you actually like that? It gives away precious screen space for no reason.
I prefer it personally, but don't really mind either way, especially given the similar semantics. Googling the issue never came up with some discussions so I thought I'd throw it out there.
(Notice that your patch addresses the slime-indentation contrib only. That contrib is not widely used. It does not change the way Emacs indent these (or similiar) forms by default. It also does not address that Slime does some indentation magic based on a macro's lambda list.)
So what are people using for indentation these days? Everything seems to have inconsistencies. I was using cl-indent-patches until recently because a few things weren't working well, but I'm just having different inconsistencies with slime-indentation. -- Daniel White
participants (2)
-
Daniel White -
Tobias C. Rittweiler