[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Brand new clojure support in Emacs ;-)

From: Bozhidar Batsov
Subject: Re: Brand new clojure support in Emacs ;-)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 17:15:17 +0200
User-agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-701-g9b2f44d3ee-fm-20230823.001-g9b2f44d3

That's a pretty disappointing remark, which implies that the Emacs team doesn't really care about having a good collaboration with the authors and maintainers of 3rd party Emacs packages.

I know that for whatever reason we're now discussing clojure-mode, but there are many other major modes for which one can make exactly the same case (erlang-mode, elixir-mode, haskell-mode, etc). Let's just rush forward and include some stripped down/forked versions of them upstream as well, ignoring the people behind them and their end users (who are bound to face some degree of confusion short term). Adopting such a combative stance across the board would be very harmful for our small community IMO. 

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, at 3:29 PM, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, 9:13 AM Danny Freeman <danny@dfreeman.email> wrote:

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:14:21 +0300
>> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
>> But we don't always agree between ourselves. Not on this subject anyway.
> Those disagreements are not relevant when the issue is the inclusion
> of a package in core.

I'd like to think I have the best interests of Emacs at heart, both as
someone who has contributed a handful bug fixes to the core, as a
clojure developer in my day job, and as the maintainer of

With that in mind, I won't stand in the way of a new clojure editing
mode for Emacs, in fact I suggested enabling lisp mode for clojure files
somewhere else in this thread. However, I will advocate for not
hijacking the name clojure-mode that has been in active use for 15

I don't think using the term "hijacking" is productive.  The GNU emacs developers could well say that using a standard functional name like "clojure-mode" with no intent to contribute it to the core was the "hijacking", or perhaps namespace-squatting.  It would be different for "cider" or another non-standard, nonfunctional name.  It should have been obvious at the time clojure-mode was originally authored that the name would have been adopted for a builtin mode if there were going to be one.


reply via email to

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