Add correct indentation for 'with' keyword

[tonini]

related to #349

Examples

defmodule Foo do

  def bar do
    with {:ok, width} <- Map.fetch(opts, :width),
         {:ok, height} <- Map.fetch(opts, :height) do
      {:ok, width * height}
    else
      :error ->
        {:error, :wrong_data}
    end
  end

end

defmodule Foo do
  def bar do
    with {:ok, width} <- Map.fetch(opts, :width),
         {:ok, height} <- Map.fetch(opts, :height),
      do: {:ok, width * height}
  end
end

defmodule Foo do
  def bar do
    with({:ok, width} <- Map.fetch(opts, :width),
         {:ok, height} <- Map.fetch(opts, :height),
      do: {:ok, width * height})
  end
end

This PR will also fixes #351

[tonini]

/cc @gausby @whatyouhide

[whatyouhide]

As I said in #349, I don't think with() would be used (I never used for() myself) and the indentation it has now it's confusing anyways IMO (why are the clauses not aligned, but just when there are parens?).

If we want to support with(), then I'd say we shouldn't do anything different than regular with, i.e., aligning clauses with each other and do:/else: one level more than with.

[tonini]

@whatyouhide @gausby ok I updated the examples how it works now.

[gausby]

@whatyouhide I use with/1 with parenthesis to get around some indentation issues, so if we keep it as is for the with() case I would be a happy camper; and I would start using the “normal”-style when this PR is merged.

[tonini]

As @whatyouhide already mentioned, the behavior of with/1 should be the same as without. (Sorry @gausby ;-)

I think also this way because it's hard to support different behaviors at all in cases of with parentheses and without.

I would like to merge this PR now, if you're guys ok with it. 👍

[whatyouhide]

I'm 👍 for it! :)

[gausby]

@tonini but I'll just switch my coding style, I only did the ()'s to work around the indentation issue that this pr solves ^_^

(I am lazy like that)

Thanks for fixing this!