[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: project.el semantics

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: project.el semantics
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:50:57 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/42.0

On 11/12/2015 08:17 PM, John Wiegley wrote:

I think the average user shouldn't even know this machinery exists, the
defaults should be so well chosen. We'll have a surface API for asking typical
questions like "What files should be ignored in this directory?"

How can you ask the question about "this directory", if the code responding to the question doesn't know it's not allowed to use the contents of the current buffer? Aren't you bothered by the perspective of getting two different answers about the directory, depending on which file you're visiting?

Only advanced
users should write any Lisp code; and they will be rewarded with the ability
to configure the system to their heart's content.

I meant more like having to M-x customize-variable for each backend I end up using.

Why don't you provide some justification for flexibility? I did provide a
justification for the given restriction.

Because I want to use this system for things outside of those restrictions.

Well, I'm going to wait for the specifics.

But maybe you should consider using other APIs for those other things.

I wouldn't call the API a "system". From where I'm standing, it should just be a set of contracts tailored for a particular purpose. There's no "inheritance" anywhere, so you can't really reuse it for highly different things.

And I'd really like to see what that "set of defaults" is going to look

This will take significantly more work than I can do in the time I have today.
Proving to you that the alternative design is better will require me to write
some of it, and that will need several days to work out at the very least.

The 25.1 release is months away, judging for the feature freeze lengths of previous Emacs releases. So I think we could make an exception for project.el, considering it's basically just words, and not a lot of code that might need exhaustive testing.

But still, it's your decision.

Thanks, Dmitry, although I sense more frustration than congratulation in your
wish... I certainly hope you will continue to work with me on this feature,
since I'd like you to be in charge of the defaults, since in that area, your
restrictions are most likely the right ones.

Yes on first two statements, but I'll have to see what the "defaults" will look like.

Also perfectly fine, whichever you think is best for xref.el. I'm OK with
"trial features" appearing in a release, so long as we note that they may
change without notice and shouldn't be too much relied upon.

Let's do that, then.

reply via email to

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