Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> > Another thing that bothers me is that I prefer Gassanenko-style packing
>> > of `end' keywords so that they vertically align with the scope of the
>> > opened block, as it saves so much vertical space and is easier for me to
>> > read, but lua-ts-mode moves it to the latest innermost indentation
>> > level, as opposed to the outermost depending on the count of ends in the
>> > line itself:
>> 
>> I don't see any reason not to support that style but I'm not sure how to
>> do it. A patch would be welcome but I'll try to figure it out sometime.
>
> Maybe introduce indentation styles into lua-ts-mode, like CC Mode and
> c-ts-mode have?

I’ll have a look at what the c-ts-mode styles do and see what might be
applicable. In this case the changes can be accommodated by default.

Andrey Listopadov <andreyorst@gmail.com> writes:

> Thanks! The patch seems to work as I would expect for most cases.
>
>> I don't see any reason not to support that style but I'm not sure how to
>> do it. A patch would be welcome but I'll try to figure it out sometime.
>
> A far as I understand it, in the `lua-mode' the overall line indentation
> is computed via subtracting indentation for every `end' in that line,
> e.g. `end end end' subtracts `lua-indent-level three times from current
> indent level.

Thanks for the explanation. The attached patch should make end packing
work now.

>> Sure. It's a new mode so nothing is really set in stone. Let me know if
>> you have other suggestions.
>
> I also noticed that `lua-ts-inferior-lua` for some reason starts itself
> in a new frame instead of just a new window. I haven't seen this
> behavior with other inferior-*-modes, and the `lua-start-process'
> function from `lua-mode' doesn't spawn a new frame either.
>
> Looking at the code, it seems that it was a deliberate choice, as I see
> the use of `display-buffer-pop-up-frame' in the `display-buffer' ACTION
> arg.

It did use a window originally but I was asked to change it:

>> +    (pop-to-buffer buffer)))
>
> I believe that `display-buffer-pop-up-frame' is the preferred alternative
> to `pop-to-buffer' these days.

Maybe I misunderstood and it was only about not using ‘pop-to-buffer’
and should have been ‘display-buffer-pop-up-window’. CC’d Philip for
clarification.

If you customize where you want it with ‘display-buffer-alist’ that
should be respected.