On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:26:21 AM UTC-5, Rob Foehl wrote:
> I've stumbled over the unfortunate tendency of 'preserveindent' to mix 
> spaces and tabs [1] -- as noted in the help [2], but nonetheless 
> unexpected -- enough times now that I've been looking into the history of 
> this feature and why this behavior exists, and I've found a couple of 
> interesting points:
> 
> - 'preserveindent' doesn't seem to be widely used or understood.  Trying
>    to find any information on its expected behavior is an exercise in
>    frustration, and almost every available piece of advice on using it
>    seems to be attached to a suggestion to enable 'copyindent', without any
>    explanation of the distinction between the two -- suggesting that all
>    such advice is of the cargo cult variety.  An admittedly incomprehensive
>    set of searches appears to reinforce this hunch [3].
> 
> - There was a patch adding a 'leftindent' option, posted back in 2005 [4],
>    that works by only adding or removing indentation at the left end of a
>    line.  This patch adds a somewhat complex dependency on 'softtabstop'
>    and 'preserveindent', but otherwise seems workable.
> 
> It doesn't look like it'd be too much work to update that patch, add 
> tests, etc., but before I get too far down that path: would it make more 
> sense to just make 'preserveindent' work this way instead?  I'm inclined 
> to think that's the obvious expectation, and can't think of any cases 
> where it wouldn't be, especially as "spaces before tabs is bad" is just 
> about the only thing widely agreed upon when it comes to indentation...
> 

Makefiles are the only place I can think of where I use 'preserveindent' and 
'copyindent'.

This way recipes always have the syntactically required leading TAB indent, but 
any spaces used for indent or alignment afterward are maintained when I 
add/remove indent or create a new line in the recipe.

Currently >> and << on these lines will keep the leading TAB. If I understand 
your proposal correctly, this property could be lost, breaking the makefile.

So, I'd say "no" to a change such as this, although as you say these options 
are a little hard to fully understand so I'm not 100% sure I'm accurately 
representing the problem.

-- 
-- 
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Raspunde prin e-mail lui