Re: Include leaf in Emacs distribution

[Naoya Yamashita <conao3@gmail.com>]

> That was just a simple example from my init file to try to show that
> use-package or leaf could help to keep package configurations more
> consistent and that it could be used by the code generated by the "emacs
> wizard", thus we have reasons to include use-package or leaf on the
> Emacs core. So I was not suggesting to add undo-tree or diminish on the
> "emacs wizard". 

> Imagine that we have a lot of recipes on the "emacs wizard" for several
> different packages with more complex declarations, in this case
> use-package or leaf can keep things more organized and consistent. (I
> know that this is subjective.)

Totally agree.  I believe that using leaf allows for a more
consistent Emacs setup.

Of course, I understand that leaf is just a macro, simply
wrapping bare Elisp, but I think this has the effect of making
the user focus on the essential meaning.  Emacs already has the
same type of Elisp built into it.  It's derived and easy-mmode.
I know how to create major-mode and minor-mode without those
macros, but I think almost all users will use those macros.

That's because they know it's more declarative, easier to
maintain, and more robust to use.  The leaf provides the same
thing for package settings.  With a more parsimonious and
declarative syntax, the user writes the configuration and leaf
converts it into Elisp.

The usefulness of leaf and use-package is demonstrated by the
MELPA DL numbers.  As leaf or use-package include into Emacs,
their bootstrapping code can be omitted and the user's init.el
will be more consistent.

###

There have been numerous points made in the thread so far.

- The first is the problem that the name leaf doesn't indicate its feature
- The second issue is that use-package has a licensing problem.
    (This is an issue that will be resolved by the release of Emacs-28, I believe.)
- Third, the issue of the benefits of leaf and use-package to Emacs users.

Are there any other points of discussion?