GNU bug report logs -
#15594
24.3; Indentation of method arguments without parentheses in ruby-mode is broken
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
On 15.10.2013 07:31, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> How would that look?
>> (unless (member (save-excursion (ruby-smie--forward-token) '("]" "}" "end"
>> "+" "-" "?" ":" ...)))
>
> (looking-at "\\s)\\|\\s.") ?
I guess this is better, but it has both false negatives (unary operators
like -, ~ and !) and false positives (all non-opener keywords).
>> Or should the check be more like "is the next token in `ruby-smie-grammar',
>> and if yes, is its left priority more than ' @ 's right priority"?
>
> Calling ruby-smie--forward-token is a bit dangerous since that function
> might itself be called from ruby-smie--forward-token. It might work,
> but you'll have to think hard about why an inf-loop is not possible.
Hopefully because both `ruby-smie--forward-token' and
`ruby-smie--backward-token' would only call `ruby-smie--forward-token',
and only when (> pos (point)), IOW there has to be some whitespace
skipping done between the recursive calls.
>> You've probably already found this, but on the off chance you haven't,
>> here's its syntax in (incomplete, somewhat outdated, etc) BNF form:
>> http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/cse305/RubyBNF.pdf
>
> Please add this URL in a comment somewhere near ruby-smie-grammar (for
> example).
Done.
> Getting `foo' and `bar' aligned is just a matter of adding && to the set
> of infix operators (i.e. completing the table of infix operators).
> Getting `bar' to be indented one more than `foo' here but not in other
> cases of "foo && \n bar" would require more work.
Ok, let's go with the former for now.
This bug report was last modified 11 years and 208 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.