Stephen> Deleting XEmacs Review from the CC list. APA> Using double-semicolon will set up the same re-indentation APA> trap Stephen> Only if the surrounding code moves. The double semicolon Stephen> style should indent the first semicolon to the current Stephen> indent-column, and push all the blocked-out code 2 (or 3) Stephen> columns to the right. The lines get a little longer, but This is the problem I refer to. ;; comments so indented cannot be uncommented using C-u M-x comment-region. Using ;;; avoid this short-coming of C-u M-x comment-region. Do we want to make C-u M-x comment-region smarter? Stephen> not disasterously so unless the code is very deeply Stephen> nested in the first place. APA> and make uncomment-region impossible. Stephen> Not as long as it can assume that the region is Stephen> double-semicolon commented. That's not how C-u M-x comment-region works currently. Stephen> I don't know how much the existing code would have to Stephen> change. I don't oppose your proposal on the grounds that Stephen> ;; is better than ;;;, for sure. I just put it forward Stephen> as one I like better. I see your point. Maybe C-u M-x comment-region needs to become smarter. APA> If my proposal to comment broken or unneeded blocks of code APA> (if they shouldn't be deleted alltogether) by triple APA> semicolon makes sense, then we should make it the dafault. Stephen> Well, that kinda depends on whether we would screw up Stephen> usage outside of the core Lisp. I don't know anything Stephen> about that, but if people are used to the single Stephen> semicolon style, this would be something of a shocker. Stephen> :-) Not any more than re-indenting this from, ahem, lisp-mnt.el: (require 'picture) ; provides move-to-column-force ;(require 'emacsbug) ; XEmacs, not needed for bytecompilation APA> However, re-indenting XEmacs core lisp files (unless APA> otherwise noted explicitely) should be harmless and APA> desirable. Stephen> Please, no! Reindent code that you have to touch for Stephen> other reasons, OK. But gratuitous format changes create Stephen> distracting diffs and conflicts in update. I agree with you. But having to manually indent functions, just because someone else had used default XEmacs commenting on it before, is a real pain. Best regards, Adrian Stephen> -- Stephen> University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Stephen> Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 Stephen> _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ Stephen> What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules." -- Adrian Aichner mailto:adrian＠xemacs.org http://www.xemacs.org