diff --git a/queries/tags.scm b/queries/tags.scm
index 4cbb753..00dc928 100644
--- a/queries/tags.scm
+++ b/queries/tags.scm
@@ -39,7 +39,8 @@
                    "(?i)^(cl:)?(let|let\\*|flet|labels|macrolet|symbol-macrolet)$")
   )
 
-;; TODO: exclude also:
+;; TODO:
+;;     - exclude also:
 ;;       - (defclass name (parent parent2)
 ;;           ((slot1 ...)
 ;;            (slot2 ...))
@@ -49,24 +50,25 @@
 ;;             as a function call - exclude it too
 ;;           - the same for labels
 ;;           - the same macrolet
-;;       - (flet ((func-1 (param1 param2))) ...)
-;;         - instead of simply excluding it, as we do today,
-;;           tag func-1 as @local.definition.function (I suppose)
-;;         - the same for labels, macrolet
-;;       - @local.scope for let, let*, flet, labels, macrolet
-;;         - I guess the whole span of the scope text,
-;;           till the closing paren, should be tagged as @local.scope;
-;;           Hopefully, combined with @local.definition.function
-;;           withing the scope, the usual  @reference.call within
-;;           that scope will refer to the local definition,
-;;           and there will be no need to use @local.reference.call
-;;           (which is more difficult to implement).
-;;         - When implementing, remeber the scope rules differences
-;;           of let vs let*, flet vs labels.
 ;;       - what else?
 ;;         (that's a non-goal to completely support all macros
 ;;          and special operators, but every one we support
 ;;          makes the solution a little bit better)
+;;     - (flet ((func-1 (param1 param2))) ...)
+;;       - instead of simply excluding it, as we do today,
+;;         tag func-1 as @local.definition.function (I suppose)
+;;       - the same for labels, macrolet
+;;     - @local.scope for let, let*, flet, labels, macrolet
+;;       - I guess the whole span of the scope text,
+;;         till the closing paren, should be tagged as @local.scope;
+;;         Hopefully, combined with @local.definition.function
+;;         withing the scope, the usual  @reference.call within
+;;         that scope will refer to the local definition,
+;;         and there will be no need to use @local.reference.call
+;;         (which is more difficult to implement).
+;;       - When implementing, remeber the scope rules differences
+;;         of let vs let*, flet vs labels.
+
 
 ;; Inlclude all other cases - list literal with symbol as the
 ;; first element