[Geany-devel] HTML/XML autoindentation - Re: [PATCH] Some editor/snippets/keybindings enhancements

[Nick Treleaven]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 06:03:33 +0400
Eugene Arshinov <earshinov at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > The drawback of the third patch is that it's not completed.  If user
> > > likes to leave HTML tags like <br> "unclosed", she would be
> > > disturbed by automatic indentation caused by my patch, so a check
> > > box in Preferences is desirable.  I'll code it as soon as we decide
> > > this patch can go to trunk.
> > 
> > For HTML perhaps we could have a filetype pref for this.
> > 
> 
> What should it look like?  I can't name this pref "autoindent" because
> it would be confusing if for XML and HTML it only controls the
> indentation after XML/HTML tags, not after braces in PHP/JS chunks.  If
> I make the pref more specific (e.g., "xml-autoindent"), it won't
> probably be quite proper to insert such a specific member to
> GeanyFiletype struct.
> 
> Maybe it's more appropriate to add a check button near "Preferences >
> Editor > Indentation > Auto-indent mode" list?  AFAIK (never used it),
> "Match braces" mode works only for braces languages and thus is
> already somewhat filetype-specific.
> 
> For the present, I attach an updated patch which doesn't insert
> indentation after "short" HTML tags.

OK, looks like a good solution.

Committed patch, but I disabled autoindentation if tag autoclosing is
enabled, because the two features don't really work well together.

E.g. typing <table> adds </table> after the cursor; what if the user
wants to put the closing tag on a newline? They press enter and the
closing tag is indented, which is not wanted.

>  I also modified existing tag
> autocompletion code so that it doesn't check for HTML tags if current
> lexer is XML, not HTML.  I slightly modified utils_find_open_xml_tag()
> in order to reuse it in my autoindentation code.  Particularly I removed
> `check_tag' parameter and strange condition
> 
> else if (! check_tag && *cur == '>')
> 	break;
> 
> I'm not sure why this condition was needed there.

Was it necessary to remove it? Just checking as we should leave it
otherwise. (Currently the change is applied).

Nick