[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Any exceptions for the 15-line rule?

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Any exceptions for the 15-line rule?
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:45:16 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5

On 27.04.2013 17:28, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Thanks, `substring' is better than `replace-match' I mentioned. But
still, should this be considered a full new implementation? Does
replacing `cond' with `if' in the inner condition make it a new piece of
code, as opposed to derivative one?

The purpose is just to "simplify" the code, rather than to obscure
the copyright.  In terms of copyright, it does reduce the amount of code
taken, indeed, but it's not a very significant difference.

I see.

With such cleanups, the patch seems acceptable as a "tiny change".
But please do ask for the CA as well (so the use of "tiny change" is
mostly a way to avoid having to wait for the CA to go through).
To be clear, who do I ask to sign the CA over the modified patch? The
auto-complete-clang author, or the person who looked at a few pieces
from that package and adapted them to (admittedly, fairly similar)
company-clang code?

In terms of who owns the copyright, the answer is probably "both", but
to the extent that it fits the "tiny change" criteria we don't need to
care too much (unless one or both of the authors already have
contributed code as a "tiny change" since those things are cumulative).

Assuming that we want company-mode and auto-complete to share more code
in the future, having the assignment of AC's author is a good idea.

auto-complete-clang is a separate package from auto-complete (which has multiple authors, but the principal one already has CA on file: Tomohiro Matsuyama). I'll ask, although I think the only useful piece left we could borrow is converting the lightweight markup in completion candidates into syntax highlighting, and that I should be able to write in some different way without much difficulty.

As for the person who sent you the patch, it would also make sense to
get his/her assignment if there's a chance he'll contribute more in
the future.

Ok, I'll ask.

PS: By the way, I think company-backends should be merged with (and/or
moved over to) completion-at-point-functions, and some of those backends
should be moved to their respective major modes.

Yes, I remember the email that accompanied your company-capf patch, but so far I don't see a good way to go about it.

The interface provided by company-backends is considerably richer. How do we fit that inside completion-at-point-functions?

There's also the problem of keeping compatibility with already released Emacs versions. If we move the code, they won't be able to use it; if we keep it, it would create duplication.

reply via email to

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