diff lispref/macros.texi @ 89910:548375b6b1f8

Update unicode branch

--- a/lispref/macros.texi	Fri Apr 16 12:51:06 2004 +0000
+++ b/lispref/macros.texi	Mon Apr 19 07:01:43 2004 +0000
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 @c -*-texinfo-*-
 @c This is part of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.
-@c Copyright (C) 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+@c Copyright (C) 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 @c See the file elisp.texi for copying conditions.
 @setfilename ../info/macros
 @node Macros, Customization, Functions, Top
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
 * Backquote::               Easier construction of list structure.
 * Problems with Macros::    Don't evaluate the macro arguments too many times.
                               Don't hide the user's variables.
+* Indenting Macros::        Specifying how to indent macro calls.
 @end menu
 
 @node Simple Macro
@@ -136,6 +137,28 @@
 @end smallexample
 @end defun
 
+
+@defun macroexpand-all form &optional environment
+@cindex macro expansion in entire form
+
+@code{macroexpand-all} expands macros like @code{macroexpand}, but
+will look for and expand all macros in @var{form}, not just at the
+top-level.
+
+In emacs-lisp, @code{macroexpand-all} guarantees that if no macros
+are expanded, the return value will be @code{eq} to @var{form}.
+
+Repeating the example used for @code{macroexpand} above with
+@code{macroexpand-all}, we see that @code{macroexpand-all} @emph{does}
+expand the embedded calls to @code{inc}:
+
+@smallexample
+(macroexpand-all '(inc2 r s))
+     @result{} (progn (setq r (1+ r)) (setq s (1+ s)))
+@end smallexample
+
+@end defun
+
 @node Compiling Macros
 @section Macros and Byte Compilation
 @cindex byte-compiling macros
@@ -205,6 +228,41 @@
 called interactively.
 @end defspec
 
+  The body of the macro definition can include a @code{declare} form,
+which can specify how @key{TAB} should indent macro calls, and how to
+step through them for Edebug.
+
+@anchor{Definition of declare}
+@defmac declare @var{specs}@dots{}
+A @code{declare} form is used in a macro definition to specify various
+additional information about it.  Two kinds of specification are
+currently supported:
+
+@table @code
+@item (edebug @var{edebug-form-spec})
+Specify how to step through macro calls for Edebug.
+@xref{Instrumenting Macro Calls}, for more details.
+
+@item (indent @var{indent-spec})
+Specify how to indent calls to this macro.  @xref{Indenting Macros},
+for more details.
+@end table
+
+A @code{declare} form only has its special effect in the body of a
+@code{defmacro} form if it immediately follows the documentation
+string, if present, or the argument list otherwise.  (Strictly
+speaking, @emph{several} @code{declare} forms can follow the
+documentation string or argument list, but since a @code{declare} form
+can have several @var{specs}, they can always be combined into a
+single form.)  When used at other places in a @code{defmacro} form, or
+outside a @code{defmacro} form, @code{declare} just returns @code{nil}
+without evaluating any @var{specs}.
+@end defmac
+
+  No macro absolutely needs a @code{declare} form, because that form
+has no effect on how the macro expands, on what the macro means in the
+program.  It only affects secondary features: indentation and Edebug.
+
 @node Backquote
 @section Backquote
 @cindex backquote (list substitution)
@@ -331,9 +389,9 @@
 @node Wrong Time
 @subsection Wrong Time
 
-  The most common problem in writing macros is doing too some of the
+  The most common problem in writing macros is doing some of the
 real work prematurely---while expanding the macro, rather than in the
-expansion itself.  For instance, one real package had this nmacro
+expansion itself.  For instance, one real package had this macro
 definition:
 
 @example
@@ -636,3 +694,62 @@
 allocation construct.  You wouldn't use @code{setcar} on a constant such
 as @code{'(nil)}, so naturally you won't use it on @code{(empty-object)}
 either.
+
+@node Indenting Macros
+@section Indenting Macros
+
+  You can use the @code{declare} form in the macro definition to
+specify how to @key{TAB} should indent indent calls to the macro.  You
+write it like this:
+
+@example
+(declare (indent @var{indent-spec}))
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+Here are the possibilities for @var{indent-spec}:
+
+@table @asis
+@item @code{nil}
+This is the same as no property---use the standard indentation pattern.
+@item @code{defun}
+Handle this function like a @samp{def} construct: treat the second
+line as the start of a @dfn{body}.
+@item a number, @var{number}
+The first @var{number} arguments of the function are
+@dfn{distinguished} arguments; the rest are considered the body
+of the expression.  A line in the expression is indented according to
+whether the first argument on it is distinguished or not.  If the
+argument is part of the body, the line is indented @code{lisp-body-indent}
+more columns than the open-parenthesis starting the containing
+expression.  If the argument is distinguished and is either the first
+or second argument, it is indented @emph{twice} that many extra columns.
+If the argument is distinguished and not the first or second argument,
+the line uses the standard pattern.
+@item a symbol, @var{symbol}
+@var{symbol} should be a function name; that function is called to
+calculate the indentation of a line within this expression.  The
+function receives two arguments:
+@table @asis
+@item @var{state}
+The value returned by @code{parse-partial-sexp} (a Lisp primitive for
+indentation and nesting computation) when it parses up to the
+beginning of this line.
+@item @var{pos}
+The position at which the line being indented begins.
+@end table
+@noindent
+It should return either a number, which is the number of columns of
+indentation for that line, or a list whose car is such a number.  The
+difference between returning a number and returning a list is that a
+number says that all following lines at the same nesting level should
+be indented just like this one; a list says that following lines might
+call for different indentations.  This makes a difference when the
+indentation is being computed by @kbd{C-M-q}; if the value is a
+number, @kbd{C-M-q} need not recalculate indentation for the following
+lines until the end of the list.
+@end table
+
+@ignore
+   arch-tag: d4cce66d-1047-45c3-bfde-db6719d6e82b
+@end ignore