Re: Feedback on indentation rules

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hello,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> 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?
>
> Yes.
>
> Now, it’s aesthetics so there’s no “rationale” per se but rather
> established practice: in the project, but also from what I can see in
> Guile and more generally Scheme (info "(guix) Formatting Code").

See commits d0b7858968a2c8c8cdacc3679447b250fb5b4dd9 and
933051281fbed0ae71bd40c24a701faf2a02791c, where I reverted to status quo
w.r.t. indentation rules of gexp->derivation and computed-file, given
the lack of clear consensus.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim