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

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 23:37:28 -0700
> Cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>,
>  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > This discussion is primarily about our design and implementation
> > decisions: whether some features need to have more than one "back-end"
> > or just one, decided by us.  AFAIU, we haven't made the final
> > decisions yet.  Whether and how users will control that comes later.
> > If we decide that each feature will have only one "back-end", the part
> > of selecting a "back-end" is automatically resolved to a non-issue.
> 
> IMO in some sense, eglot and major mode sits at the same level, and tree-sitter a level lower. Consider this: take imenu as an example. Major mode sets imenu-create-index-function for imenu to function. A major mode now has two options available, one function uses tree-sitter and one don’t. If the user enables eglot, eglot sets menu-create-index-function to eglot-imenu, overriding major mode’s function. From this perspective, tree-sitter is just a mechanism a major mode could use, not unlike syntax-ppss, while eglot do things its own way, replacing parts of the major mode’s functionality with its own.
> 
> So it’s not really “two back-ends”, tree-sitter and eglot are different in fundamental ways.

My vision of the relation is different from yours.  Major mode sets
imenu-create-index-function to some code that can either use
tree-sitter or some other way of detecting the symbols for the index.
That other way includes Eglot.  The fact that Eglot overrides the
mode's setting is just an implementation detail.

And none of that matters for the user, btw.  Users don't care much
about implementation, they only care about the possible ways of
getting the functionality, and in this case there are 3 such ways.