Clojurians Log v2

I’ve implemented the functionality where you can (un)comment #_, uncomment (comment ...) and when a region is selected, comment with (comment ...), all under a *single function*. With a prefix argument C-u n` you can go up n s-expressions from point, and comment them out. There’s bound to be some edge cases and tests need to be added to prevent regressions, but it works so far. (Yes, there is some duplication and I intend on cleaning that up). See what you think (note, the new changes are in s-expressions-only branch): https://github.com/dotemacs/clojure-comment-dwim.el/blob/s-expressions-only/clojure-comment-dwim.el

I like being able to comment out multiple forms using the numeric argument, which comes up surprisingly often in clojure due to "pairs" in maps and binding forms: C-u 4 clojure-toggle-ignore-form => {a 1 #_#_#_#_ b 2 c 3 d 4}

Are you thinking of submitting it to clojure-mode or a MELPA package? I've been planning to contribute my above snippet to clojure-mode too, seeing as Calva added a similar feature recently 🙂

I’ve put a bunch of scenarios in this issue, along with the discussion on the prefix argument behaviour: https://github.com/dotemacs/clojure-comment-dwim.el/issues/2

Looks like you put a lot of thought into this! I think a lot of this comes down to personal preference and workflow habits - different users will prefer having multiple specific commands vs. having a single command with context-sensitive or cycling behaviour.

In any case it seems that some sort of #_ command should belong in the main clojure-mode package for everyone's benefit. I'll open an issue on the clojure-mode repo to get feedback, hope you don't mind if I link to your repo in its current state

Just sharing my thoughts and workflow. I would like to see a clojure-mode function that just toggles #_ on the current expression, preferably without having to use C-u argument. I have some code I someone wrote for me a year or so ago, which I just bind to C-# and it does the trick. It's Evil aware so it works with Spacemacs. There are already several ways to toggle ;; style comments for lines and regions (certainly in Spacemacs) I only use one comment block per namespace, so toggling would be of no value to me. I think there is a (comment ) yasnippet (or its really easy to add one.

Thanks for the feedback @jr0cket. > I would like to see a clojure-mode function that just toggles #_ on the current expression, preferably without having to use C-u argument. I’ve got that covered right now in clojure-comment-dwim.el. But if you select a region, it figures out if this region is a s-expression, in which case it still uses #_, otherwise if it isn’t a s-expression, it wraps it in (comment ...). > It’s Evil aware so it works with Spacemacs. Not sure how Evil/Spacemacs works, as I don’t use it, but I assume that it just invokes Elisp functions bound to a certain key(combo)? > There are already several ways to toggle ;; style comments for lines and regions (certainly in Spacemacs) comment-dwim as part of stock Emacs does this.

The main issue I have with your implementation is that #_ and comment forms are semantically very different in the way they're commonly used. Treating them as equivalent and choosing which to use based on some heuristic would encourage bad style.

OK, so let me understand that better, how would you comment out a section of the code here:

{:a 1
 :b 2
 :c 3}

{:a 1
#_ :b #_2
 :c 3}

{:a 1
 #_ #_ :b 2
 :c 3}

{:a 1
 #_(:b 2)
 :c 3}

Or just standard comment-dwim style: d)

{:a 1
;; :b 2
:c 3}

hey sorry for the late reply, I would use option b

For me comment is reserved mostly for top-level comment forms, ie. temporary test code or things that are meant to be executed interactively, and ;; line comments are for text

In your example @dotemacs option b would be the result I expect to see (although comments in maps is not an approach I would typically use). The only time I seem to use the #_ comment within an expression is in a threading macro, where I would expect a single #_ would comment out the part of the execution pipeline I wanted to exclude. I guess it could also be useful in cond too, but don't really use that much.

Thank you both for the feedback!