Hello, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi, > > Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 at 17:56, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@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
