GNU bug report logs - #24766
26.0.50: [PATCH] Confusing behaviour for indent-relative-maybe

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 24766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24766: 26.0.50: [PATCH] Confusing behaviour for
 indent-relative-maybe
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 13:40:57 -0600

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 13:01:15 -0600
>> 
>> In emacs -Q's scratch buffer, try the following:
>> 
>> M-: (indent-relative) RET
>> 
>> Repeating this will move to the next appropriate indentation point as
>> indicated in indent-relative's docstring.
>> 
>> Now try:
>> 
>> M-: (indent-relative-maybe) RET
>> 
>> The point does not move even when there are appropriate indentation
>> points to move to.
>
> It doesn't move because that's what UNINDENTED-OK means.

I took UNINTENDED-OK to mean that "if non-nil, nothing is done in the
case that there are no appropriate indentation positions. If there are
appropriate indentation positions, then it should indent as usual."

The docstring could be improved to state that.

>> This contradicts the intention of the docstring for
>> indent-relative-maybe:
>> 
>>        If the previous nonblank line has no indent points beyond the
>>        column point starts at, this command does nothing.
>> 
>> 
>> I would have expected, in indent-relative, that the calculation of a
>> suitable indentation position is done independent of the argument
>> UNINDENTED-OK. The following diff fixes this:
>
> These functions exist for ages in this form.  I agree that the doc
> string is misleading (and the optional argument of indent-relative is
> not even documented),

The optional argument is implicitly mentioned as "unless
this command is invoked with a numeric argument, in which case it
does nothing."

> but other than fixing the documentation, I see
> no reason to change the behavior.  Am I missing something?

IIUC the current behaviour essentially makes indent-relative-maybe a
no-op. But again, perhaps there's something I'm missing?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.