From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: orgalist-mode: wrong indentation in message mode after recent change in emacs Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:20:15 +0200 Message-ID: <87a7ghw2tc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87k1gdptsn.fsf@len.workgroup> <87ef6l9x13.fsf@tcd.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87ef6l9x13.fsf@tcd.ie> (Basil L. Contovounesios's message of "Mon, 01 Apr 2019 23:32:40 +0100") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-devel" To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org List-Id: emacs-orgmode.gnu.org Hello, "Basil L. Contovounesios" writes: > The first is whether orgalist-mode couldn't use a custom > indent-line-function instead of advising what may or may not be set to > indent-relative by the user. I don't know how that would work in practice. But a minor mode taking control over `indent-line-function' sounds wrong. > The second is why advice--buffer-local does what it does. Stefan, why > does it behave differently depending on local-variable-p? Why can't it > simply call make-local-variable before returning the symbol-value? > > The third is why indent-according-to-mode hard-codes the check for > indent-relative and indent-relative-first-indent-point. Wouldn't it be > nice if this check instead looked up some variable akin to > electric-indent-functions-without-reindent, that can be more easily > customised? So what is the current status of this? Do I still need to add a workaround around a workaround around a genuine Emacs bug? :) Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou