Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès (2017-01-15 23:11 +0100) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2017-01-14 22:16 +0100) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> +(define (uglify-field-name name)
>>>>> + (match name
>>>>> + ('verbosity "verb")
>>>>> + (_ (let ((str (symbol->string name)))
>>>>> + (if (string-suffix? "?" str)
>>>>> + (substring str 0 (1- (string-length str)))
>>>>> + str)))))
>>>>
>>>> Not sure why but indent-code.el got ‘match’ indentation wrong, although
>>>> it works for me. Alex, any ideas?
>>>
>>> Because 'scheme-mode' does not provide indentation rules for 'match'
>>> (and many other keywords). Geiser indents 'match' properly for you.
>>
>> I see. So maybe we should just add a rule for ‘match’ in
>> .dir-locals.el; any downside to that?
>
> I'm against it, as I think ".dir-locals.el" should contain only elisp
> stuff *specific* to a project. So I would rather do an opposite, i.e. I
> would remove 'lambda*', 'eval-when', 'call-with-prompt',
> 'call-with-input-string' and 'test-*' from the .dir-locals (all of these
> keywords are handled by Geiser but not by scheme-mode).
Yeah.
> But if you consider to add it, then also add 'when', 'unless',
> 'match-lambda', 'case-lambda', 'and-let*', 'with-output-to-string',
> 'with-input-from-string' 'call-with-output-string'. All these are not
> handled by scheme-mode (but handled by Geiser).
I don’t know, do you think we should put these in a different file? How
would that work?
The problem is that people using indent-code.el typically have raw Emacs
with scheme-mode, but most likely without Geiser and Emacs-Guix. So we
need a mechanism that works in that case.
Thanks for your feedback!
Ludo’.
