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

[Philip Kaludercic]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
>   > >> Can anyone suggest a way to describe the job that Eglot does, NOT
>   > >> using technical jargon, or implementation details such as "LSP"?
>
>   > Some ideas of the top of my head:
>
>   > - ide-mode
>   > - integrated-development-mode
>   > - {smart,intelligent,clever}-mode
>   > - programming-mode
>   > - syntax-mode
>
> You've tried to resent descriptions which are short enough that they
> might serve as command names.  Unfortunately, that shortness makes
> them less than helpful for explaining the job that Eglot does.

That is kind of the issue, isn't it?  Eglot (or LSP in general) doesn't
add any new features, it just improves the accuracy of what already is
built-in.

> Each of those names can fit other things in Emacs.  There are other
> IDEs in Emacd.  Thee are other things in Emacs we could call clever.
> There are many modes for programming.  There are other features that
> understand program syntax, and there have been since 1976.