[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PL support

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: PL support
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 22:20:25 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0

On 09.05.2020 21:56, João Távora wrote:
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.

So? Make it better. Having Eglot in there wouldn't help, since you have to improve the interface while keeping in mind *all* possible uses, existing ones and potential future ones.

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.

You would submit a patch for eldoc.el with a short description why it's an improvement, and that's that. Maybe link to the original report.

The first step would be necessary anyway, as a part of the bug report discussion.

It's not like we never have long, unproductive discussions in bug reports here.

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

That's some part of it, but I'm more on the side of "lean core, rich set of plugins" approach to Emacs architecture. So I'd rather move more stuff out than add to it.

Also I hate mistargeted solutions: this discussion came out of "how make Emacs more popular" discussion, right? Initial user experience, etc. And such a move will do little to help either.

reply via email to

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