Hi Simon, Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Maxim, > > On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 at 11:54, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> For what it is worth, I do not see an high difference between the both >>> indentations. So, my opinion would to keep the current practise. >> >> Please take a look at my original message in this thread, >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-02/msg00297.html, >> where I gave examples of gexp->derivation indentations that should >> explain the rationale allow nesting arguments more naturally, as if >> gexp->derivation was a special form (although it's a simple procedure). > > Yeah, I have read this rationale before. :-) > > My question was somehow directed to Ludo: > > > 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? > > Sorry for having been unclear. > > And I do not see a big difference between, > > (gexp->derivation "check-deb-pack" > (with-imported-modules '((guix build utils)) > > or > > (gexp->derivation "check-deb-pack" > (with-imported-modules '((guix build utils)) > > It is somehow personal cosmetic and I am sometimes poor person about > cosmetic. ;-) In the second case, we end up busting the 80 chars limit easily, so it usually ends up formatted as: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (gexp->derivation "check-deb-pack" (with-imported-modules '((guix build utils)) [...] or (define builder #~(the builder code)) (gexp->derivation "name" builder) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Which is not very natural (in fact, I had found already used indentation like 1) in tests/pack.scm before I adjusted the .dir-locals.el file to match it, otherwise Emacs was re-indenting them differently). -- Thanks, Maxim
