[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A unified project root interface

From: Jorgen Schaefer
Subject: Re: A unified project root interface
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:33:22 +0100

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:50:23 +0100
David Engster <address@hidden> wrote:

> Yes, functions like `ede-project-root-directory' are actually methods,
> but why does it matter?

Nothing. I don't have a problem with CLOS (I think you might be
confusing me with another person who mentioned a distaste for CLOS). A
method for me has a complexity of a function with one required
argument. Which is, a higher complexity than a function with no
arguments. ;-)

> I'm willing to code the necessary stuff on the EDE side of things; if
> it turns out too complicated to use for package maintainers, I have no
> problem throwing it away.

This is the tricky part. I do not know what is "too complex", and it's
difficult to predict this. The only way is to try and provide a very
simple API and see if it gets adopted.

As to EDE/CEDET's complexity, I hope that "oh no, the memory usage" or
"oh no, the load time" isn't a *huge* concern if the API is simple

It would be great if EDE has such a simple entry point to allow for
expansion and better integration between packages. That is, you can use
this API without knowing anything else, and when you need more, you can
stumble into the CEDET manual and go "woah, it's full of stars". ;-)

My original idea was to provide an API that CEDET/EDE can build upon,
too, but I don't really care either way.

> This can be done. I will need a bit of time though, since I really
> need to do another CEDET merge round with current trunk first. I
> think I'll be able to come up with something in the coming weeks.

Thank you for your willingness to support this!

> > - Ask authors of extensions to use (ede-minor-mode 1) in their mode
> >   function and simply use that function in their modes.
> Not sure if it's a good idea to enable EDE behind the user's back; I
> think they should enable it in their init file if they want to have
> project support. But IMO that's a detail; let's cross that bridge when
> we get there.

Yes, it's a detail. I'm trying to replicate the current use case in
e.g. find-file-in-project where the user simply has to install ffip as
a package and can use the function without having to configure anything

        -- Jorgen

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]