Re: Proposal to add Popper to ELPA

[Philip Kaludercic]

Karthik Chikmagalur <karthikchikmagalur@gmail.com> writes:

> Thank you for the review, especially for the changes to the defcustoms.
> I'm not very familiar with the many options the customization interface
> provides.  I have applied all changes except the one in the defcustom
> for `popper-reference-buffers' (which see below).
>
> In case you missed it during the review, the package has two files:
> `popper.el' and `popper-echo.el'.  (The latter provides `popper-echo-mode',
> which adds echo-area display of available popups and allows for quick
> selection using a transient keymap.)
>
>> +;; If you are interested in depending on Compat, you could use
>> +;; `buffer-match-p' here.
>>  (defcustom popper-reference-buffers '("\\*Messages\\*$")
>>    "List of buffers to treat as popups.
>
> I would like to avoid depending on Compat for one utility function.

That is understandable, I just wanted to bring it up.

>> -  :type '(restricted-sexp :match-alternatives (stringp symbolp functionp 
>> consp))
>> -  :group 'popper)
>> +  :type '(repeat (string :tag "Regular Expression")
>> +             (symbol :tag "Major Mode")
>> +             (function :tag "Predicate Function")
>> +             ;; What is the consp in (restricted-sexp :match-alternatives 
>> (stringp symbolp functionp consp))?
>> +             ))
>
> The `consp' here is for specifying additional behavior per popup.
> Presently this is limited to requesting that (initial) display of the
> popup be suppressed, but support for other special behavior could be
> provided in the future.  Examples of this are in the README in the
> section "Suppressing popups".
>
> An example: `("\\*Compilation\\*" . hide)'
>
> How do you suggest incorporating this into the defcustom?
>
>> Also, it seems adding a .elpaignore file would be nice to remove
>> unnecessary files from the tarball:  For now a file just containing
>> "images" should suffice.
>
> Done, thank you.
>
>> Also also, by default the README file will be used to generate a package
>> description (as seen in C-h P).  I feel that the current file is just a
>> tad too long for this indent, and the description in the commentary
>> section might be preferable.  Would you be fine with using that instead?
>
> Yes, that should be fine.  The commentary section explains the purpose
> of the package and the main functions.

1+

>>> What is Popper?
>>>
>>> Short for "Popup Buffer", 
>>
>> FWIW I don't think I would have understood this.  Perhaps it is just me,
>> but despite fearing a general discussion about package names, do you
>> think renaming the package to something like "popup-buffers" would be
>> imaginable.  If not, it is fine, just wanted to bring it up /briefly/.
>
> I took my cue for the name `popper' from Emacs' built-in `winner-mode'.
> At 16K+ downloads, Popper is a reasonably well known package and I think
> renaming it now will create more confusion than clarity.

For the record, I supposed you are referring to MELPA?

> The byline for the package is "Summon and dismiss buffers as popups",
> which shows up in package listings and should help discoverability.

Of course, which is why I am not insisting on anything, I just wanted to
point out that people like me with slight dyslexia have difficulties
reading and remembering names like these.  It was actually just
yesterday that I noticed the name is not "poppler".

>>> There are other features, and a few video demos at the link.
>>
>> Is the video mirrored on some other platform as well?
>
> It's not.  Do you have a suggestion for where you'd like the videos to
> be available?  I can make that happen.

I guess any peertube instance should be OK:
https://joinpeertube.org/publish-videos.  I haven't taken a look at the
video, but as long as there is nothing mentioned in the video that is
not mentioned elsewhere, everything should be fine.  While some people
prefer it, others find videos to be a information-sparse format.

> Karthik