Re: Bug in lisp indentation

[Lennart Staflin]

Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> () Lennart Staflin <address@hidden>
> () Thu, 31 May 2007 11:44:46 +0200
>
>    In lisp-mode the indentation of the following expression is wrong:
>
>    (foo
>    :bar :a12
>    :sie sume )
>
>    If I press TAB at the beginning of the last line I get:
>
>    (foo
>    :bar :a12
>          :sie sume )
>
>    I think this is wrong, the indentation should be as the first example.
>    This was not the behaviour in emacs 21, neither is the beaviour of
>    indent-region consistent with TAB.
>
> does the following patch give good results?
> here is a description of the change:
>
>         * emacs-lisp/lisp-mode.el (calculate-lisp-indent): Use the
>         last sexp that begins a line, instead of the truly last sexp.
>
> can someone suggest a better implementation?
>
> thi
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> diff -c -r1.202 lisp-mode.el
> *** lisp-mode.el        6 Jul 2007 17:26:29 -0000       1.202
> --- lisp-mode.el        14 Jul 2007 19:48:07 -0000
> ***************
> *** 854,859 ****
> --- 854,866 ----
>                     (> (setq paren-depth (elt state 0)) 0))
>           (setq retry nil)
>           (setq calculate-lisp-indent-last-sexp (elt state 2))
> +         ;; The last sexp may not be the first sexp on the line
> +         ;; where it begins, so find that one, instead.
> +         (when calculate-lisp-indent-last-sexp
> +           (goto-char calculate-lisp-indent-last-sexp)
> +           (beginning-of-line)
> +           (skip-chars-forward " \t")
> +           (setq calculate-lisp-indent-last-sexp (point)))
>           (setq containing-sexp (elt state 1))
>           ;; Position following last unclosed open.
>           (goto-char (1+ containing-sexp))
>   

This might align the :sie line with the :bar line, but it introduces 
other indentation bugs. Also the whitespace in the mail is mangled 
slightly. The :bar line should not be indented under the left paren, but 
under the foo symbol.

As for a simpler change, I think there is a chunk of code that was added 
during the pretest to align keyword symbols, that I think is misguided. 
Removing that code fixes this bug.

//Lennart Staflin