[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PL support

From: João Távora
Subject: Re: PL support
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 19:56:33 +0100

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 7:44 PM Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> wrote:

> How would that help? Eldoc has a defined interface. If eglot-box could
> be based on that, it could just be considered for contribution on its own.

A pretty bad one, as we know.  It's much better do deal with it in one
place, Emacs, rather then the user complaining to Eglot issue tracker
then I have to explain the problem or desired feature is in eldoc,
then agree on an interface betweent he two files.  In Emacs I just
submit a patch to both files and both maintainers look at it. The reason
fido-mode was so easy is that icomplete.el and minibuffer.el are in
the same repo.  I don't find this logic very hard to follow.

Rather what I find hard to follow is the "not in core" stance. It seems
like you want to protect lsp-mode mode, or not condemn it to
irrelevance.  That's perfectly fine, mind you: perfectly fine.  But
exactly how would Eglot in core hurt that?

João Távora

reply via email to

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