GNU bug report logs -
#59662
29.0.50; [PATCH] Add treesit--indent-defun
Previous Next
Reported by: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:33:01 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Found in version 29.0.50
Done: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
> Cc: "Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife
> of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
> casouri <at> gmail.com, 59662 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2022 13:33:35 +0100
>
> Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no> writes:
>
> > On 2 December 2022 22:09:55 CET, "Daniel MartÃn" <mardani29 <at> yahoo.es> wrote:
> >>Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no> writes:
> >>
> >>> Right - thanks. However, this makes me wonder - should we really be
> >>> setting mark here? I see that c-indent-defun does not, and it feels
> >>> weird that indenting adds to the mark ring. What do you think? My
> >>> first patch used
> >>>
> >>> (indent-region
> >>> (treesit-node-start node)
> >>> (treesit-node-end node))
> >>>
> >>> Which behaves similarly to c-indent-defun.
> >>>
> >>> See attached patch.
> >>
> >>I don't have a strong opinion, but if we can indent without setting the
> >>mark, I think it'd be a cleaner command. Specially if c-indent-defun
> >>doesn't set the mark either.
> >
> > Yeah, we don't need to set the mark. Thanks for the feedback :)
> > Theo
>
> Eli, do you have any opinion on this matter? Should we implement this
> function without using marks? That will make the function a smidge
> bigger, but would not mess up the mark-ring. I think that's desirable,
> at least.
IMO, it is better not to set the mark, indeed.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 158 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.