Re: Extending define-derived-mode

[Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>]

Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:

>> On May 29, 2023, at 10:51 PM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 30 May 2023 07:16:49 CEST, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> When we were adding tree-sitter modes a couple of month ago, it was
>>> clear that the current major mode model needs some upgrade, I’d like
>>> to discuss the things we need and how can we address them.
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing this up!
>> 
>> I'll quickly just add one more thing, and respond more thoroughly in a different mail:
>> 
>> 
>> Maybe we can consider another abstraction to cover the following:
>> 
>> - configure what set of modes to use for a given language
>> - set choice of diagnostic tool (flymake/flycheck etc)
>> - set LSP client implementation with config to use
>> - project based configs
>> - separate mode name and implementation
>> 
>> I posted some time ago a simple idea covering this, and maybe the time is now to revisit this idea? People seem to like doom Emacs/spacemacs etc, so their idea of "layers" may be a nice route to consider.
>> 
>> We can supply some DSL with preconfigured settings, and add extensible functionalities.
>> 
>> Maybe something like:
>> 
>> (define-layer 'javascript-mode
>>  :mode 'treesit
>>  :enabled-in '(".js", ".mjs")
>>  :diagnostic-backend 'flymake
>>  :lsp-client 'lsp-mode ;; default is 'eglot
>>  :project '(:root-function #'some-rootfinder-fn)
>>  :other-stuff '(eslint json-something nvm))
>> 
>> This may seem only tangentially related to your email, but I believe it is, in that mode inheritance touches the "the first language mode implementation owns the namespace"-problem.
>
> Yeah this look interesting. From your example it looks more like a configuration oriented, like a more integrated use-package. I feel like we should solve the "the first language mode implementation owns the namespace”-problem in a more direct and standalone way.
>
> Yuan


Yeah, I agree. This example would piggyback on such a solution.