GNU bug report logs -
#62000
Inconsistent indentation rules for define-configuration
Previous Next
Reported by: Bruno Victal <mirai <at> makinata.eu>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:50:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: Bruno Victal <mirai <at> makinata.eu>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Hi,
Cool you had the number 62000. ;-)
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 at 12:48, Bruno Victal <mirai <at> makinata.eu> wrote:
> Suspected file: .dir-locals.el
>
> Using 'package' as a field in define-configuration results in
> inconsistent indentation:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> (define-configuration/no-serialization mympd-configuration
> (package
> (file-like mympd) ;;;; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< notice how it's indented with 2 spaces
> "The package object of the myMPD server."
> empty-serializer)
>
> (shepherd-requirement
> (list-of-symbol '()) ;;;; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< vs 1 space
> "This is a list of symbols naming Shepherd services that this service
> will depend on."
> empty-serializer)
>
> ;; ...
> )
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
What do you mean by inconsistent? Do you think that
’sheperd-requirement’ should be management by .dir-locals.el?
Well, .dirl-locals.el does not consider the context, IIUC.
For instance,
(let ((package something))
(package
()
)
)
Because of .dir-locals.el, the rules looks like that:
(not-in-dir-locals.el
()
)
(package
()
)
(package/inherit
()
()
)
(add-before
()
()
()
)
(let-keywords
()
()
()
()
)
Or you can see that differently,
(not-in-dir-locals.el ()
()
)
(package ()
()
)
(package/inherit ()
()
)
(add-before () ()
()
)
Well, since ’sheperd-requirement’ is not in .dir-locals.el, the
indentation seems expected. What do you consider as a bug?
Cheer,
simon
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 336 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.