GNU bug report logs - #60321
29.0.60; ruby-mode indentation of hash or array as first arg in multiline method call

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Aaron Jensen <aaronjensen <at> gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 60321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#60321: 29.0.60; ruby-mode indentation of hash or array as first arg in multiline method call
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2022 18:46:07 -0500

On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 4:30 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> X-Debbugs-CC: aaronjensen <at> gmail.com
>
> Splitting off from debbugs#60186, second try.
>
> Since this setting also seems orthogonal to the "simplified" preference,
> and it'll require some more work.
>
> For future reference, here are the relevant Rubocop settings:
>
> https://docs.rubocop.org/rubocop/cops_layout.html#layoutfirsthashelementindentation
> https://docs.rubocop.org/rubocop/cops_layout.html#layoutfirstarrayelementindentation
>
> On 25/12/2022 02:12, Aaron Jensen wrote:
> >> We could also discuss cases like
> >>
> >>     foo = bar({
> >>                 tee: 1,
> >>                 qux: 2
> >>              })
> >>
> >>     baz([
> >>           1,
> >>           2,
> >>           3
> >>         ])
> >>
> >> but those would be an orthogonal feature. And I don't see them much in
> >> the wild, for some reason.
> > The same logic would apply. It doesn't matter how many indent starters
> > there are in a line, the indentation should only increase by one:
> >
> >
> > foo = bar({
> >    tee: 1,
> >    qux: 2
> > })
> >
> > baz([
> >    1,
> >    2,
> >    3
> > ])
> >
> > Of course, that begs the question what happens if you do this:
> >
> > baz([
> >    1,
> >    2,
> >    3
> > ]
> > )
>
> Here are a couple trickier examples:
>
> takes_multi_pairs_hash(x: {
>    a: 1,
>    b: 2
> })

enh-ruby-mode and vim do the same thing, which I think is fine:

takes_multi_pairs_hash(x: {
  a: 1,
  b: 2
})

Though again, the best answer imo is "don't do this".


>
> and_in_a_method_call({
>    no: :difference
> },
> foo,
> bar)

enh-ruby-mode:

and_in_a_method_call({
  no: :difference
},
                     foo,
                     bar)


Vim:

and_in_a_method_call({
  no: :difference
},
foo,
bar)

I think this falls under something I wouldn't put too much effort into
fixing. I would write it like this:

and_in_a_method_call(
  {
    no: :difference
  },
  foo,
  bar
)

Which indents in a straightforward manner.

If I had to type it as above, I would probably indent it like this:

and_in_a_method_call({
    no: :difference
  },
  foo,
  bar)

But I can't imagine that would be easy to implement at all, so I
wouldn't bother.


> AFAICT even Rubocop doesn't have a setting which would indent the second
> one somewhat reasonably, while keeping two-space indent before "no".
>
> > And, I think again, the answer is a social one, rather than a technical one.
> >
> > enh-ruby-mode and vim both do this this:
> >
> > baz([
> >    1,
> >    2,
> >    3
> > ]
> >     )
>
> Yup, that looks pretty bizarre. OTOH, I don't see why a developer would
> put a newline between "]" and ")" in this case.

Exactly, that's what I meant by a social problem. We have a (somewhat
harsh) saying for stuff like this: you get what you deserve. That's
actually why I don't mind enh-ruby-mode's behavior here. It's clearly
undefined/out of bounds, so that tells a person they are currently out
of bounds and they should get back in bounds.

Aaron

Previous Next

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