Hi Simon, Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi, > > On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 at 17:56, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> Thanks for the feedback. I wonder if some are of the opinion that since >>> gexp->derivation is a plain function rather than a syntax having a >>> special form for its 2nd argument, we should leave the default >>> indentation rules untouched for it? >> >> Yes, that’s my take and current practice so far: special rules for >> special forms (macros), not for procedures. > > What is the rationale? Being able to know directly at the location when > it is a plain function or a special form? > > For what it is worth, I do not see an high difference between the both > indentations. So, my opinion would to keep the current practise. Please take a look at my original message in this thread, https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-02/msg00297.html, where I gave examples of gexp->derivation indentations that should explain the rationale allow nesting arguments more naturally, as if gexp->derivation was a special form (although it's a simple procedure). -- Thanks, Maxim