EditorConfig #18
EditorConfig #18
Conversation
Conflicts: .emacs.d/lisp/package/dependencies.el - Fixed by keeping all packages.
This is the simplest possible configuration for everything.
This new function is run as an EditorConfig custom hook, so it only takes place in situations where EditorConfig can be loaded.
This might suck.
.emacs.d/lisp/code/editorconfig-c.el
Outdated
| ;; Enable EditorConfig mode | ||
| (editorconfig-mode +1) | ||
|
|
||
| (defun kotct/editorconfig--disable-smart-tabs-if-indent-tabs-mode-disabled (&optional hash) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please can we shorten some of the names? This is a little excessive.That's what the docstring's for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also what's the point of HASH?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you have a suggestion for a better name? hash is a hash passed by EditorConfig when it runs the hooks. It contains the loaded properties from the EditorConfig file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It'd go with something like kotct/editorconfig-maybe-disable-smart-tabs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also the hash thing sounds fine. Maybe mention that it's only there for compatibility and is ignored in the docstring.
.emacs.d/lisp/code/editorconfig-c.el
Outdated
| nil | ||
| "If non-nil, warning on startup is suppressed.") | ||
|
|
||
| (defun kotct/editorconfig-check-for-core (&optional suppress) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's choose either -- or - and stick to it. Personally I'm in favor of -.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay. - works. I generally use -- for situations when I don't want people calling the functions, so really everything here should be --.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. We haven't been using that convention in dot, but we could lol.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should. Anything that we don't want users to use (i.e. stuff that isn't (interactive)-ified) should be with double dashes, imo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't the fact that it's not interactive enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aye, but we don't want the functions mixed in with the ones that are interactive when you're using something like an autocompleter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay.
I'm open to this if you want to go through and change everything on a branch.
| Debug warning is suppressed if SUPPRESS is non-nil." | ||
|
|
||
| (if (not suppress) | ||
| (if (not (executable-find editorconfig-exec-path)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
editorconfig-exec-path sounds like a path, not an executable name. If this is the case, we should be using something that checks if the file exists, not executable-find.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, it's an executable name. (i.e. editorconfig, no pathing)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yikes. Bad name. Is that the editorconfig package's fault then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but it makes sense. This is platform-agnostic, and uses Emacs' builtin which-like mechanisms to hunt down the executable. They should just use editorconfig-executable.
We can switch back to double-dash once we have a specification we actually want to implement.
|
@cg505 I'm going to go ahead and merge this. As with most PR's, this is low-impact and adds functionality so it doesn't matter too much if it's broken. |
This probably sucks and isn't exactly what we want, especially with the core warning, but it does implement basic support for
editorconfig-mode. I have tested it and it does effectively change indentation style.