ng0 (2016-10-28 08:30 +0000) wrote: > ng0 <n...@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes: > >> Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes: >> >>> [ Unknown signature status ] >>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 09:31:33PM +0000, ng0 wrote: >>>> Occasionally I use vim on systems to work on guix and other projects. As >>>> far as I see it, there is nothing similar to .dir-locals.el (the per >>>> directory local variables in emacs) for vim. >>>> >>>> We should include modelines for every file to reflect what .dir-locals.el >>>> does when you use emacs. It's probably an unpopular opinion, but I think >>>> we should do this to be more open to people who do not use emacs. >>>> Support for vim and emacs covers most editors which are there to >>>> support. >>>> >>> >>> IMO there's too many files to go adding to the bottom of all the files. >>> Something I've been thinking about is learning enough vimscript to write >>> a guix.vim file that'll take care of formatting. >> >> I agree, this could be more useful. The best approach would be to move >> this to a separate project, so that other systems can create packages >> for this to install it. > > Different issue, but somehow related: Could we move the emacs > specific settings into an emacs mode if emacs modes can detect > some common structure or however we specify that the current file > which is edited is guix and not guile/scm alone?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. What does «move the emacs specific settings into an emacs mode» mean? Also there is no difference between some guix ".scm" file and a usual guile ".scm" file. -- Alex
