Hi Efraim,
Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 05:20:55PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> -CC bug#61255
>> +CC guix-devel
>>
>> Hi Ludovic and guix-devel readers,
>>
>> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> skribis:
>> >
>> >> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
>> >>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >>> I’m not convinced by the indentation rule for ‘gexp->derivation’ added
>> >>> in 82daab42811a2e3c7684ebdf12af75ff0fa67b99: there’s no reason to treat
>> >>> ‘gexp->derivation’ differently from other procedures.
>> >>
>> >> The benefit I saw was that writing
>> >>
>> >> (gexp->derivation the-name
>> >> #~(begin
>> >> (the
>> >> (multi-line
>> >> (gexp)))))
>> >
>> > I understand, but you know, it’s best to avoid unilaterally changing
>> > established conventions. :-)
>> >
>> > If and when there’s consensus about this change, (guix read-print)
>> > should be updated.
>>
>> OK. I'm not against soliciting more opinions; I'm CC'ing guix-devel,
>> hoping some opinionated individuals tip in on this 2021
>> 82daab42811a2e3c7684ebdf12af75ff0fa67b99 commit, more specifically, the
>> part that change the indentation rules for .dir-locals.el like this:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> + (eval . (put 'gexp->derivation 'scheme-indent-function 1))
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> In the same spirit there was also
>> b1c25e2ce364741d1c257d3bb3ab773032807a80 (".dir-locals.el: Add
>> indentation rule for computed-file.") made more recently (last month).
>>
>> The idea was to be able to format gexp->derivation like this:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> (gexp->derivation "check-deb-pack"
>> (with-imported-modules '((guix build utils))
>> #~(begin
>> (use-modules (guix build utils)
>> (ice-9 match)
>> (ice-9 popen)
>> (ice-9 rdelim)
>> (ice-9 textual-ports)
>> (rnrs base))
>> [...]
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> Rather than like this:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> (gexp->derivation "check-deb-pack"
>> (with-imported-modules '((guix build utils))
>> #~(begin
>> (use-modules (guix build utils)
>> (ice-9 match)
>> (ice-9 popen)
>> (ice-9 rdelim)
>> (ice-9 textual-ports)
>> (rnrs base))
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> (or having to use another 'builder' variable, for example).
>>
>> What do you all think?
>
> The second one is waaaay to indented. For myself I sometimes end up
> wrapping the lines (although I don't love it) so it looks like this:
>
> (gexp->derivation
> "check-deb-pack"
> (with-imported-modules '((guix build utils))
> #~(begin
> (use-modules (guix build utils)
> (ice-9 match)
> (ice-9 popen)
> (ice-9 rdelim)
> (ice-9 textual-ports)
> (rnrs base))
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?
My take on this would be a pragmatic one: readable code trumps
indentation rules purity, but I'm interested to gather all the views.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
