I know this is an old bug report, but I just realized it got a response, and it seems like the behavior hasn't changed.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:07 AM Lars Ingebrigtsen <
larsi@gnus.org> wrote:
Gulshan Singh <gsingh2011@gmail.com> writes:
> In c-mode (and all derivatives), the following code has the wrong
> syntactic information (at least, in my opinion):
>
> foo(bar
> .baz()
> .qux());
>
> Putting point at `.baz()` and pressing C-c C-s shows it as an
> `arglist-cont-nonempty`, when I'd expect it to be a
> `statement-cont`. This causes the code to have the wrong indentation, as
> above I would like to have the continued statements to be indented one
> c-basic-offset, not aligned to the opening brace.
(This bug report unfortunately got no response at the time.)
I'm not sure how that should be indented, really -- the current
indentation looks reasonable to me, I think?
It's definitely reasonable, but it's not what I'd prefer, which would be this:
foo(bar
.baz()
.qux());
`.baz()` and `.qux()` are indented two spaces (my value for `c-basic-offset`) from the start of `bar`, as opposed to aligned with `bar`. This matches what happens if the call to `foo` isn't there:
bar
.baz()
.qux();
In any case, regardless of what indentation one would prefer for this case, the issue remains that `c-show-syntactic-information` should be showing `statement-cont` instead of `arglist-cont-nonempty` at `.baz()`.