[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: req-package

From: Edward Knyshov
Subject: Re: req-package
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:27:07 +0000

Alexander, the answer to your a-b question is yes, req-package manages it.
That's the main idea. You do not need to rearrange your code.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:37 PM Alexander Shukaev <address@hidden>

> >> Consider my previous one:
> >> (use-package recentf
> >>   :defer
> >>   :commands
> >>   (recentf-mode)
> >>   :config
> >>   (with-eval-after-load 'evil
> >>     (evil-make-overriding-map recentf-dialog-mode-map 'motion)
> >>     (evil-set-initial-state 'recentf-dialog-mode 'motion)
> >>     (evil-ex-define-cmd "rfm[enu]" #'recentf-open-files)))
> >
> > Can you explain what' are the issues here?
> >
> > I guess one issue is with
> >
> >    (evil-make-overriding-map recentf-dialog-mode-map 'motion)
> >
> > since this can only be used after both recentf and evil are loaded.
> > But I don't see where use-package req-package helps you with this
> > problem (which you instead solve with with-eval-after-load, IIUC).
> >
> > Can you clarify?
> Right now, `use-package' is nothing more, but a convenient way to
> structure configurations of packages, especially in terms of autoloads
> and deferring. Yes, right now it's more cosmetics and sugar, rather
> than something that one cannot live without.  Still, I think there
> were plenty of good examples in another thread (with the `:mode'
> keyword, for instance).
> In this thread, however, we want to go deeper and discuss package
> "configuration-time" dependencies (which are not covered by
> `use-package' by default), and `req-package' offers some features in
> this regard, though I still don't quite understand them
> comprehensively.  The biggest issue, that is not solved anywhere
> (neither vanilla Emacs nor `use-package' provide facilities for this)
> out of the box, is the one that I described two posts earlier with the
> example on `a' and `b'.  Did you understand the issue?  If
> `req-package' solves it, then this might be a good step forward in
> evolving `use-package' and making it a "really" handy tool for
> managing complex configurations.

reply via email to

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