> OK. So if someone puts this function elsewhere and Eglot
> can take advantage, that's fine and dandy. Where would you
> put a dotted-settings-to-plist function?
I do not know if I would at all. As I said, it is an informal
convention. It skirts a number of corner cases, and as soon as you try
to build a sound implementation, you are forced to address those,
which breeds incompatible dialects.
(As a few examples, on the first sight, it looks as if the dotted path
is a dot-separated concatenation of unquoted object keys going from
the root object. What do you do if one of the keys contains a dot? a
space? What if one of the keys being traversed is an empty string?
What if you need to traverse an array?)
Right, i see your point. Then I'd say again that it maybe belongs in Eglot because -- presumably -- LSP options objects don't incur in those edge cases.
I just expect people to be able to read
‘rust-analyzer.assist.emitMustUse (default: false)’ in documentation
and write
{
"rust-analyzer": {
"assist": {
"emitMustUse": true
}
}
}
in a JSON config or
rust-analyzer:
assist:
emitMustUse: true
in YAML.
Indeed. And why not a plist, since we're in lisp land? :)
João