Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias?

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2022 07:38:24 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2022 18:34:03 -0400
> > 
> >   > Yes, so take python-mode as an example.  It has both tree-sitter
> >   > support and Eglot support.  How to use both? does it even make sense?
> > 
> > Do they do the same jobs?  Are they intersubstitutable, in principle?
> 
> Not clear yet (to me).  Dmitry says they are basically orthogonal in
> the features they support.
> 
> One difficulty here is that Eglot exists for some years, so what it
> does and how is pretty clear; by contrast, tree-sitter support in
> Emacs is very young, and where it could potentially develop needs more
> study, at least on my part.

For example, at least up-front, it sounds like the LSP specification
supports both fontifications and indentation.  Eglot, AFAICT, allows
to request the language server to do the latter (via the eglot-format
command), but doesn't support requesting information about token
types, which could be used for fontification.

So, at least in principle, the functionalities based on these two
could overlap.  If that is indeed so, we'd need to decide whether we
support the overlapping functionalities or use each one of these
packages for capabilities that are disjoint, whereby each
functionality is supported by the package that does it best (for some
value of "best").