João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:18 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> What I meant is, using it with the Elisp implementation didn't
>> convince me of the usefulness of the feature. Perhaps you disagree?
>>
>> Or it would be nice to hear from someone who have tried out Eglot's
>> integration and found more upsides there.
>
> If you want that to happen, the only realistic way to have good
> feedback from anyone else other than emacs-devel nerds like me and you
> is to release an Eglot version with this feature, which we can change
> later (even non-backward-compatibly, within a reasonable time frame).
I tried the Eglot integration, my comments elsewhere are inspired by
that.
Can you point me to this "elsewhere"?
I found it rather clumsy out of the box.
What exactly is clumsy? Please state the command you used and what the clumsy effects were.
However, it works well with an
approach of adding bindings for individual kinds, as is currently how I
(and other Eglot users at Jane Street, and presumably most other Eglot
users everywhere) use Eglot. So that compatibility with an
already-common approach is an upside of this integration.
Bindings to what commands exactly?
However, the alternative UI which shows all kinds of definitions in a
single buffer does not exist for Eglot in the same way it exists for
Elisp. So... I can't really compare it to that.
What "alternative UI" are you talking about exactly? How can I trigger it for Elisp? Please give a full example as I don't know what you are taking about.
Thanks!
João