-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Clojure navigation in evil-lisp-state #2307
Comments
AFAIK evil-lisp-state is still a work in progress, and elisp seems to be the main target, rather than clojure. The movement paradigm has changed once or twice. I assume @syl20bnr would be open to PRs, or for a more feature complete (currently) package with good clojure support, try lispy. It's another "mode" to learn, and it's not quite vi-keys, but it's extremely well thought out and flows very well. |
Thanks for the tip about Lispy, I'll look into it. Would still love to hear whether improved Clojure support for evil-lisp-state is already in planning somewhere? |
I totally agree jdwaterson. There is the clojure config in contrib/!lang/clojure. |
Should be fixed in version 8.2 of |
The problem still exists for Should I open another issue for that? |
Still new to Spacemacs, and many thanks for the excellent work on it, but it seems to me that evil-lisp-state has a fairly big weakness when dealing with Clojure. Is this an issue, or just a design decision that I'm unaware of?
The problem is that the structural navigation (on the j and k keys in evil-lisp-state) doesn't treat square brackets or curly braces as significant and just skips right over them. Unlike in most other Lisps, these characters (especially square brackets) are fundamental to the way that Clojure is organised, and so lisp-state becomes difficult to use.
For example, if I want to slurp something into an argument list (delimited with square brackets) then I frequently end up hopping between modes several times just to get my cursor into the right place. It's very fiddly.
Is this something that's been observed before, and is it likely to be addressed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: