Re: more on anything.el inclusion

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:27:45 -0400 MON KEY <monkey@sandpframing.com> wrote: 

MK> Maybe Icicles and Antyhing code/features could/should be merged before
MK> inclusion in Emacs.

MK> FTR I use neither Anything nor Icicles and couldn't endorse either
MK> from experience.  However, I have watched the progress of their
MK> respective development with interest.

I used both anything.el and Icicles for a long time (though I stopped
using Icicles a year ago).  They can't be merged.  At best you can pick
features from both.

MK> It is wrongheaded to arbitrarily incorporate external packages which
MK> duplicate existing core behaviour/features such that the duplication
MK> of the new (however useful) is better positioned to becomes the norm
MK> simply by virtue of the pain imposed on emacs-devels to retrofit a
MK> core API after the fact.

I disagree with your phrasing ("arbitrarily" and "duplication" in
particular) and your conclusions.

MK> IOW lets say anything.el were to be included in Emacs and it became so
MK> widely adopted that it was deemed worthwhile to attempt a retroactive
MK> metaleval API (including C primitives). Were Stefan or some other
MK> devel to endeavor implementation of such an API they might be hard
MK> pressed to maintain backwards compatibility with the existing
MK> anything.el procedures and prob. alienate the primary anything.el user
MK> base to boot.

Well, that's why I asked Stefan what his decision was.  If he says "no"
that's fine.  I think he can judge the effort and significance of an
alternative to the standard completion mechanism.

Ted