emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias?


From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias?
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 05:28:53 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Sorry, no.  We will not start a dispute about renaming eglot, because
  > that would delay its merge, and we don't have time for that luxury.
  > We want eglot to be part of Emacs 29.

We can make this decision in a week.

Now, before including a package in Emacs, is the last good time
to choose a helpful name.

The policy that "We have left the issue so long that it is too late to
choose a better name" leads predictably to accumulation of unhelpful
names.  I speculate that this has been at work for decades, resulting
in so many unhelpful package names now in Emacs.

  > As for more basic arguments why not rename it: this package is not a
  > new one, it is used by many people as a 3rd-party package.

We can keep `eglot' as an alias for years or decades, or forever,
if we choose a helpful name as the principal one.

If there is no workable way to define alias names for packages, we
should create one now.  The crucial thing is to have the various names
in the _list of packages_, with the more helpful name preferred.

The names of the package's entry points are less crucial.  We know how
to give them aliases, but if they are numerous, that would be more
nuisance than it's worth.  How many entry points does this package
actually have?

Given the existence of multiple packages for dealing with language
servers, calling one of them just "language server" or "lsp" seems
bad.  Rather, helpful names will show people (1) what job all these
packages do and (2) that they are different ways to do it.

Ideally, also, also what is special about each of these packags, if we
can come up with good ways to do that.  It may not be practical.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)





reply via email to

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