From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id cJ+yJE8isl+MQwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:55:11 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id gKm6IE8isl9vTQAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:55:11 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39F189402A6 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:47426 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1keYPt-0000IY-He for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 01:55:09 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37212) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1keYPD-0000II-4u for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 01:54:27 -0500 Received: from hiwela.pair.com ([209.68.5.201]:55972) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1keYPB-000232-9W for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 01:54:26 -0500 Received: from hiwela.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hiwela.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D720598056C; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 01:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from minshall-entroware-apollo.cliq.com (unknown [95.8.197.123]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hiwela.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1A828F0896; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 01:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from apollo2.minshall.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minshall-entroware-apollo.cliq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E90602F6; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:54:21 +0300 (+03) From: Greg Minshall To: Kyle Meyer Subject: Re: Changed list indentation behavior: how to revert? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:24:37 -0500." <87tutpvppm.fsf@kyleam.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 27.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <737363.1605509661.1@apollo2.minshall.org> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:54:21 +0300 Message-ID: <737364.1605509661@apollo2.minshall.org> Received-SPF: softfail client-ip=209.68.5.201; envelope-from=minshall@umich.edu; helo=hiwela.pair.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/16 01:26:32 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = FreeBSD 9.x or newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -11 X-Spam_score: -1.2 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin?= Le Gouguec Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" header.from=umich.edu (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.09 X-TUID: i0bVcbN9kgkh i wonder if a grid might help? i.e., contexts in which we are all happy, others where we might disagree? below, i try; i'm sure i've missed cases. question: what does do/would we like it to do when we are in? ========================================= tables: next row, current column Org Src buffers: electric-indent per declared language major mode rules. src blocks: same as in Org Src buffers (i think there have been some very nice "recent" improvements here, which are great, and for which, belated thanks!) ^^ i think we are all happy with those ========================================= ========================================= vv here, i think, well, "Houston, ..." :) after n* heading: column 1 vs column n+2 list entry (end of line): column where previous "-" was (to start a new list item) vs two columns *after* where previous "-" was (to continue with the current list item) immediately after (non-blank, non-list, non-heading) with text starting in column n: column 1 vs column n immediately after a blank line: column 1 vs column of first non-blank character of most recent non-blank line? ========================================= surveymonkey, anyone? :) not to vote, but i'm curious to what extent we divide cleanly into two groups (in which case, maybe an option for which "major mode indentation" style one prefers for org-mode makes sense), or if we are uniformly distributed across the power set. :) btw, it seems to me that M-q (fill-paragraph) also has *something* to say here. i.e., though *i* want from a list entry to line me up at the previous "-", i want M-q within a list entry to add new lines starting two columns past that point. i guess i see it as orthogonal (and, so far, non-controversial) to the current discussion, and hope it so stays! cheers, Greg