[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Package initialization
From: |
Helmut Eller |
Subject: |
Re: Package initialization |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:01:56 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
On Mon, Jul 20 2015, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Because slime-connect is supposed to create a connection to an external
> > process. Not mess around in with some mode-hooks and minor-modes.
>
> If slime-connect won't work properly without slime-setup, there's no
> difference. If it's useful to do slime-connect without slime-setup,
> that would be another story but it sounds unlikely.
It wouldn't work properly without slime-setup. Hmm... since we can't
call slime-setup from .emacs, I guess we have no other choice than to
call it from slime-connect too; very annoying.
> I'd have to hear
> details to say how XEmacs would prefer to handle it.
The current version of SLIME doesn't work with XEmacs; we stopped
supporting XEmacs about a year ago.
> > package.el seems to be so designed that package installation
> > implies package initialization. I don't like that but I can't
> > change it.
>
> I didn't get that impression. It's one thing for Emacs to
> automatically scan for usable packages and add them to load-path, to
> set up autoloads for their entry-point commands, and perhaps add their
> data directories etc to appropriate paths so they can be found by name
> rather than a full filesystem path. I don't consider that
> "initialization" because it's consistent with the "and the kitchen
> sink" tradition of Lisp environments (especially GNU Emacs), where
> packages that many users would never notice if they weren't installed
> are often included with the core distribution.
I have the impression that the left hand doesn't know what the right
hand wants. In the manual they say that it's ok to add things to
auto-mode-alist, but then Stefan says that packages should not be
enabled automatically.
> It's another to change the meaning of user gestures, even in a trivial
> and "obviously useful" way like adding to keymaps.
>
> If in fact the majority of lisp-mode users find slime sufficiently
> useful, what I would do is negotiate with the lisp-mode maintainer (I
> suppose that's actually emacs-devel) to get the slime bindings
> "officially" added to the lisp-mode keymaps, and arrange for them to
> fail gracefully if the slime package is unavailable, eg, by binding
> them to a `lisp-mode-how-to-get-slime' help command.
I think we rather keep control of key bindings in our own hands;
especially as we don't always agree with the Emacs maintainers (like the
bindings for M-./M-, until recently etc).
Helmut
- Re: Package initialization, (continued)
- Re: Package initialization, David Kastrup, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Artur Malabarba, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, David Kastrup, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Artur Malabarba, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Helmut Eller, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization,
Helmut Eller <=
- Re: Package initialization, Chad Brown, 2015/07/20
- Re: Package initialization, Helmut Eller, 2015/07/20
- Re: Package initialization, Artur Malabarba, 2015/07/20
- Re: Package initialization, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/07/20
- Re: Package initialization, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/07/21
- Re: Package initialization, Helmut Eller, 2015/07/21
- Re: Package initialization, Alexis, 2015/07/25
- Re: Package initialization, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Stefan Monnier, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Helmut Eller, 2015/07/20