Re: Feedback on indentation rules

2023-03-17 Thread Maxim Cournoyer
Hello, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi, > > Simon Tournier skribis: > >> On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 at 17:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> Maxim Cournoyer skribis: >>> Thanks for the feedback. I wonder if some are of the opinion that since gexp->derivation is a plain function rather than a syn

Re: Feedback on indentation rules

2023-03-15 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Simon Tournier skribis: > On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 at 17:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Maxim Cournoyer 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 arg

Re: Feedback on indentation rules

2023-03-09 Thread Maxim Cournoyer
Hi Simon, Simon Tournier writes: > Hi Maxim, > > On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 at 11:54, Maxim Cournoyer > wrote: > >>> 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 mes

Re: Feedback on indentation rules

2023-03-07 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi Maxim, On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 at 11:54, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: >> 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/arch

Re: Feedback on indentation rules

2023-03-07 Thread Maxim Cournoyer
Hi Simon, Simon Tournier writes: > Hi, > > On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 at 17:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Maxim Cournoyer 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 fo

Re: Feedback on indentation rules

2023-03-07 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi, On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 at 17:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Maxim Cournoyer 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 defaul

Re: Feedback on indentation rules

2023-03-06 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Maxim Cournoyer 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

Re: Feedback on indentation rules

2023-03-01 Thread Maxim Cournoyer
Hi Efraim, Efraim Flashner writes: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 05:20:55PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: >> -CC bug#61255 >> +CC guix-devel >> >> Hi Ludovic and guix-devel readers, >> >> Ludovic Courtès writes: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Maxim Cournoyer skribis: >> > >> >> Ludovic Courtès writes:

Re: Feedback on indentation rules (was: [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack")

2023-02-27 Thread Efraim Flashner
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 05:20:55PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > -CC bug#61255 > +CC guix-devel > > Hi Ludovic and guix-devel readers, > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > Hi, > > > > Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > > > >> Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> > > [...] > > >>> I’m not convinced by the in

Feedback on indentation rules (was: [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack")

2023-02-23 Thread Maxim Cournoyer
-CC bug#61255 +CC guix-devel Hi Ludovic and guix-devel readers, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi, > > Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès writes: >> [...] >>> I’m not convinced by the indentation rule for ‘gexp->derivation’ added >>> in 82daab42811a2e3c7684ebdf12af75ff0fa67b99: there’