Re: Adding 'compat' from ELPA as an optional dependency to ERC

["J.P." <jp@neverwas.me>]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> "J.P." <jp@neverwas.me> writes:
>
>>                              Although, I believe doing so would also
>> define compat- prefixed variants in all versions of Emacs, the idea
>> being to save third-party packages from having to do stuff like
>>
>>   (defmacro erc-compat--json-parse-string (string &rest args)
>>     `(,(if (fboundp 'compat-json-parse-string)
>>            'compat-json-parse-string
>>          'json-parse-string)
>>       ,string
>>       ,@args))
>
> If a function like this were to be definied upstream
>
>         (defun get-compatibility-func (name)
>           "Return the function NAME of a compatibility alias."
>           (let* ((compat (intern-soft (format "compat-%s" name))))
>             (or (symbol-function (if (fboundp name) name compat))
>                 (error "No definition for %S could be found" name))))
>
> then all that ERC would have to do is
>
>         (defalias 'erc-json-parse-string
>           (get-compatibility-func 'json-parse-string))
>

Nice. That looks really handy.

(BTW, wouldn't a real life `get-compatibility-func' need some extra
pizzazz to favor the prefixed form for certain versions? Because, as
shown, something like (erc-jason-parse-string "42") would still signal a
`json-parse-error' on Emacs 27, no?)

>> But in ERC's case, there'd be no avoiding this kind of indirection.
>> (Please correct me if that's a flawed understanding.)
>
> While prefixing is used, no, because we cannot assume that compat is
> installed.

Right. Makes sense.

So, getting back to the main thrust of this thread, I guess I'll go
ahead and add the proposed changes to Emacs 29, barring any last-minute
objections. Thanks.