Re: PL support

["João Távora" <joaotavora@gmail.com>]

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 6:23 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> I didn't mention tree-sitter in my message.  So why are you talking
> about it?

Because you said "or similar facility".  I assumed it would be tree-sitter.

> I understand all this, albeit not on the same level of detail as you
> do.  What I'm saying is that from my POV our goal is to go all the way
> towards bringing this technology to major modes.  The instructions to
> turn on this support should include everything that's needed:
> installing packages, running the LSP server, customizing the major
> mode, etc. etc. -- everything that's needed to have the mode run with
> LSP as its backend for these language-dependent features.
>
> IOW, just having a mode that can talk to the LSP server is good
> progress, but it stops short of the goal I think we should target.

OK, sounds reasonable. In that case I put it to you that the best
way to make it happen is to import eglot.el into the core, help me
convince the maintainers of the major modes to add a few lines
to their code, and enhance eglot.el to automatically download
server programs.

We _can_ do this without importing eglot.el into the core, by
adding to hooks and having and/or having a few defvars and
maybe cl-defgeneric.  But adding it to the core is a simpler
way, IMO.  eglot.el is a single file library, by the way.

> > Anyway, it is is because of this loose coupling that Dmitry says
> > that Eglot could live "forever" outside of the core.  And it's mostly
> > true.  But I do believe that if it were in the core (like if company.el
> > or an equivalent library was in the core) that would help even
> > more CC Mode users (or Foo Mode users) discover LSP's advantages,
> > especially if Emacs also started distributing an LSP server program
> > for C or FOO.
> I'm aware of the controversy regarding what should be in core and what
> should be left on ELPA.  Heck, I'm part of that controversy.  But I
> don't think we will ever be able to come close to resolving it
> regarding Eglot unless we have support for it in major modes ready to
> be turned on.  Only then will people be able to try it, see if they
> like it, and then have some real basis for opining whether it should
> or shouldn't be in core.  IOW, the level of success in having the
> related features beefed up using Eglot is IMO a very significant
> factor in forming people's opinions about making it part of core.

I agree I think.  We that people like you try it  (and eventually contribute
to it, i.e. by fixing bugs, or pointing flaws) with little "pain".  I think
the easiest way is to do what I described above.

João