Re: emacs-29 b18754bb179: Minor improvements in c-ts-mode and docs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:51:09 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> 
> > We could at least discuss that, sure.  Is there a list of
> > inconsistencies between those modes available anywhere?
> 
>  From past discussions and looking at 'C-h m':
> 
> - "electric" behaviors: CC Mode's commands vs. electric-indent-mode and 
> electric-pair-mode.
> - c-subword-mode vs subword-mode
> - c-display-defun-name vs which-function-mode
> - c-indent-exp vs prog-indent-sexp
> - c-indent-defun/c-fill-paragraph vs prog-fill-reindent-defun
> - c-indent-line-or-region vs indent-for-tab-command and indent-region.

These don't exist in c-ts-mode, with the single exception of the
electric behavior of '#' (which is a must in C).  So I think we are
already there, no?

> Curious how c-indent-line-or-region doesn't mind depending on 
> transient-mark-mode being on.

It does:

  (c-indent-line-or-region &optional ARG REGION)

  Indent active region, current line, or block starting on this line.
  In Transient Mark mode, when the region is active, reindent the region.
  Otherwise, with a prefix argument, rigidly reindent the expression
  starting on the current line.
  Otherwise reindent just the current line.

> > The next question, of course, is how to go about reducing the
> > inconsistencies.  What you proposed here is simply drop the
> > keybinding,
> 
> I also suggested, alternatively, that transient-mark-mode, when turned 
> off, creates a global binding for comment-region (also with 'C-c C-c'). 

I'm not sure this is a good idea.  I'd rather we used the prefix
argument to M-; in some creative way, like if its value is zero or
negative.