|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: Split off some backends from Company? |
Date: | Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:23:03 +0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 |
On 08/14/2014 07:07 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
I see what you mean, but why does this need another package? It seems the code could/should be in yasnippet, controlled by something like a minor-mode.It could be in yasnippet, but then it would implicitly depend on Company anyway.You mean it can't be a completion-at-point-function?
Not a useful one, no. Like mentioned, company-yasnippet's candidates list not exhaustive (in terms of things, in general, that the user would usually want to see completed), so it's won't be a good completion function by itself.
Further, there is a convention in the third-party developer community of not doing too much in autoloads ("installing the package shouldn't turn it on", or something along these lines).That's true as well. Of course "turn it on" is not always as clear-cut as it sounds. Adding oneself to company-backend might be seen as "turn it on", but if you consider that it's only actually used if you do enable company and if you use the appropriate major mode (or compiler backend, or snippet library, ...), then you may decide that it's not really "turned on".
Ok, that makes sense. But anyway, the above convention is only a secondary consideration, as far as I'm concerned.
To the extent that ELPA packages are normally installed by the end user (my install.el package distinguished "system install" from "user install" but package.el doesn't really provide much support for system-wide installs, thjo it doesn't actively prevent them), I think it's not that bad if installing a package also turns it on.
Agreed.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |