[plt-scheme] Inadequate indentation facility in MrEd/DrScheme

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:49 AM, James Russell <j.russell at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Matt Jadud <jadudm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/18/08, James Russell <j.russell at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>>>  > You mean as opposed to the indentation customization options?
>>
>>>  My, admittedly cursory, inspection of framework/private/scheme.ss
>>
>> I'm confused. I am able to customize indentation through a variety of
>> preferences, and get letrec-like (or documentation-like) indentation
>> without any difficulty.
>>
>> You've explained very little; what kind of indentation are you trying
>> to achieve, and what are you seeing?
>>
>
> I'm not talking about indentation customization in general,
> which I can do using the preferences form in DrScheme.
> I'm talking about a very specific set of forms that I cannot
> make DrScheme indent properly.
>
> I'm trying, for instance, to get a syntax form like
> 'for/fold' (but this is only an example), which
> has two binding sub-forms before the body sub-forms,
> to indent like it does in the manual or like it might in emacs,
> where I can specify that multiple sub-forms (not just one)
> should indent four rather than two spaces.
>
> In emacs I would say:
> (put 'for/fold 'scheme-indent-function 2)
>
> If DrScheme can do this, I can't figure it out.
>
> In the manual, for/fold looks roughly like
>
> (for/fold (foo...)
>          (bar...)
>  body
>  body
>  ...)
>
> I'd be happy with (as emacs might indent):
>
> (for/fold (foo...)
>    (bar...)
>  body
>  body
>  ...)
>
> or
>
> (for/fold
>   (foo...)
>   (bar...)
>  body
>  body
>  ...)
>
> All I can get DrScheme to do, by making 'for/fold'
> lambda like is:
>
> (for/fold (foo...)
>  (bar...)
>  body
>  body
>  ...)
>
> or
>
> (for/fold
>    (foo...)
>  (bar...)
>  body
>  body
>  ...)
>
> but '(bar...)' is a binding-form and should not be indented like a body form.
>
> One can further imagine other macros that have 2 binding forms,
> or that even have 3 or more binding sub-forms, which would suffer
> from the same problem.
>

And just to dispel any idea that I'm carping about some obscure syntax form,
that no one but me cares about:

other forms that indent wrong, by traditional standards, include
'do' and 'let loop', both of which should indent the second sub-form four spaces
not two (if it stands on a new line).
I do, however, realize that 'let loop' (or whatever it should be called),
is an unpleasant special case.

>
>> Cheers,
>> Matt
>>
>



-- 
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of
the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P.Lovecraft